Bruins scouting Blues

[glen a richter]

I'm sure there's a reason management does the things they do, but I don't get why Phil McRae isn't up with the team. He'd be better than Ott and LaPierre both.

[dmiles2186]

I'm sure there's a reason management does the things they do, but I don't get why Phil McRae isn't up with the team. He'd be better than Ott and LaPierre both.

Whatever you want to say about Ott and Lapierre, Phil McRae has played only 15 NHL games in his life. Do we really know if he would be better? (This coming from an Ott hater).

Jaskin was supposed to be great upon coming up to the NHL. He hasn't been. Rattie the same way last year. Guys need time. I would not feel comfortable at all just turning the 4th line over to a guy like McRae. He's still only 24, he may have some valuable days ahead of him for us, but to say he'd be better than two veteran NHLer's isn't something I can get on board with.

[crazyhorse]

Hear Armstrong was at the Boston game last night, and Oshie is the subject?!?!?!

http://www.csnne.com/boston-bruins/some ... ocid=yahoo

[cardsfan04]

I don't think I like that. If they're trying to clear salary to sign Tarasenko in the offseason, I'd rather they did it at a time other than a Cup run. Depends on the return I guess, but this seems like an odd match.

[cprice12]

Hear Armstrong was at the Boston game last night, and Oshie is the subject?!?!?!

http://www.csnne.com/boston-bruins/some ... ocid=yahoo

I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense at all for the Blues to trade Oshie...but it of course depends on who we get back. And since Boston is looking for offense, they wouldn't be giving up any offense in the trade.
And now with Schwartz out with a broken ankle, I think it's even less likely we trade away a forward of Oshie's caliber right now.

But I would hope any trade with the Bruins would involve Berglund and not Oshie.

[glen a richter]

Figures I'm tossing around the idea of buying an Oshie jersey, so naturally as soon as I click submit order he'll get traded. But on the other hand I was thinking of getting an Oshie USA, not an Oshie Blues, so that could prevent backfiring.

[ViPeRx007]

Hear Armstrong was at the Boston game last night, and Oshie is the subject?!?!?!

http://www.csnne.com/boston-bruins/some ... ocid=yahoo

I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense at all for the Blues to trade Oshie...but it of course depends on who we get back. And since Boston is looking for offense, they wouldn't be giving up any offense in the trade.
And now with Schwartz out with a broken ankle, I think it's even less likely we trade away a forward of Oshie's caliber right now.

But I would hope any trade with the Bruins would involve Berglund and not Oshie.

Yea, I think people just like putting Oshie in a rumor because it generates more buzz than Berglund does; everyone in the country knows Oshie, but I doubt a lot of people outside of St. Louis know Berglund. I have to think that this is more about Berglund. The Blues would be silly to move Oshie right now, but, like someone else said, a lot of it would depend on the return, I guess. I know Oshie hasn't had his best season so far, point-wise, but he's a fan favorite and a spark plug that is important for other reasons as well, not just on the scoreboard. He'd be tough to replace, I'd think.

I'm really curious to see how Jaskin does during this stint. The injury to Schwartz, sucky as it is, could ultimately end up being a blessing in disguise. I really hope he brings it because that would definitely open the door even more for a Berglund trade. All that I really care about at the end of the day is generating enough cap space to sign Tarasenko. There's going to be some tough moves ahead, I'm afraid, but if some of the younger guys can step up and grab these types of opportunities it would make things a whole lot easier.

[ecbm]

There's no way the Blues could clear space via a trade with Boston. They're up against the cap just as much as the Blues. The only way that works is if the Blues knowingly acquire an expiring contract they won't renew. If a trade is made with Boston, it's more likely because the Blues really like the player they're acquiring or have a real problem with the player they're dealing. The wild card is if the FO knows Bouwmeester's injury is serious and want to acquire a defenseman to cover him by dangling a forward. Maybe. We'll see.

Any salary clearing should be done by moving guys making more than they're worth unless that becomes impossible. That means Ott, Berglund, Jackman.

First, let me say that I am not saying we should trade him...

Elliot is an elite goalie, even though for some insane reason he isn't widely thought of as one...

A premiere 2-way defenseman would be a great acquisition...but that is what Petro is supposed to be...sort of.

But his name just pops to my mind when I think of valuable assets that we have that I would consider trading because of the return we would get. I think we could legitimately get more than what he is really worth, and from a business standpoint, it would be smart to move anyone in that situation.

Ok, I've boiled that down to the points I want to address. First, we agree. We shouldn't try to trade Petro. Putting an asset like that on the market actively guarantees you won't get a fair return.

Elliott isn't seen as elite because he doesn't have a track record of consistent good play. He's had two seasons with sv% over .920 and in those he played 38 and 31 games, respectively. In 4 seasons from 2008-11, he played 31, 55, 43 and 12 games and posted sv% of .902, .909, .894 and .891. That's why he's not considered elite. I feel for him recently as his problem seems to be injuries more than anything. He earned his shot, and hopefully will get to resume it soon. For the record, I'm confident in him.

I never heard it suggested that Petro is a top-end physical, crease-clearing defenseman. That's what I mean-and why I brought up Chara and Weber. Short of that type of player, how does trading him improve this team? By adding another forward to compete for minutes on the 3rd line? To add a dman who at best is as good as him? He's not a guy I can see moving to clear salary either until literally every team in the league is contacted about potential interest in Ott, Berglund, Pajaarvi, Jackman and the entire 4th line.

That last paragraph is a completely fine sentiment to have when you're in selling mode as a team. I really hope this team can do something to inspire a winning mentality among its fans-that's the only thing that's going to get us out of the shell-shocked mindset that this team needs to sell all its assets and rebuild every 5 years or so. Last couple years when the Cardinals were desperate for help in the outfield and rotation, everybody and their brother asked for Wacha and, rest his soul, Taveras. The Cardinals didn't budge because they aren't desperate; they have the confidence of winning that allows them to refuse to get reamed in pursuit of some nebulous future goal.

[ViPeRx007]

There's no way the Blues could clear space via a trade with Boston. They're up against the cap just as much as the Blues. The only way that works is if the Blues knowingly acquire an expiring contract they won't renew. If a trade is made with Boston, it's more likely because the Blues really like the player they're acquiring or have a real problem with the player they're dealing. The wild card is if the FO knows Bouwmeester's injury is serious and want to acquire a defenseman to cover him by dangling a forward. Maybe. We'll see.

Any salary clearing should be done by moving guys making more than they're worth unless that becomes impossible. That means Ott, Berglund, Jackman.

First, let me say that I am not saying we should trade him...

Elliot is an elite goalie, even though for some insane reason he isn't widely thought of as one...

A premiere 2-way defenseman would be a great acquisition...but that is what Petro is supposed to be...sort of.

But his name just pops to my mind when I think of valuable assets that we have that I would consider trading because of the return we would get. I think we could legitimately get more than what he is really worth, and from a business standpoint, it would be smart to move anyone in that situation.

Ok, I've boiled that down to the points I want to address. First, we agree. We shouldn't try to trade Petro. Putting an asset like that on the market actively guarantees you won't get a fair return.

Elliott isn't seen as elite because he doesn't have a track record of consistent good play. He's had two seasons with sv% over .920 and in those he played 38 and 31 games, respectively. In 4 seasons from 2008-11, he played 31, 55, 43 and 12 games and posted sv% of .902, .909, .894 and .891. That's why he's not considered elite. I feel for him recently as his problem seems to be injuries more than anything. He earned his shot, and hopefully will get to resume it soon. For the record, I'm confident in him.

I never heard it suggested that Petro is a top-end physical, crease-clearing defenseman. That's what I mean-and why I brought up Chara and Weber. Short of that type of player, how does trading him improve this team? By adding another forward to compete for minutes on the 3rd line? To add a dman who at best is as good as him? He's not a guy I can see moving to clear salary either until literally every team in the league is contacted about potential interest in Ott, Berglund, Pajaarvi, Jackman and the entire 4th line.

That last paragraph is a completely fine sentiment to have when you're in selling mode as a team. I really hope this team can do something to inspire a winning mentality among its fans-that's the only thing that's going to get us out of the shell-shocked mindset that this team needs to sell all its assets and rebuild every 5 years or so. Last couple years when the Cardinals were desperate for help in the outfield and rotation, everybody and their brother asked for Wacha and, rest his soul, Taveras. The Cardinals didn't budge because they aren't desperate; they have the confidence of winning that allows them to refuse to get reamed in pursuit of some nebulous future goal.

What's that about Bouwmeester? He's not injured unless I missed something. Maybe you meant Gunnarsson, but even he's supposed to be back soon...

I do agree that I don't see a trade scenario with the Bruins that would improve the team, that's why I see this as being more about Berglund (or the other guys you mentioned) than someone like Oshie.

[cprice12]

There's no way the Blues could clear space via a trade with Boston. They're up against the cap just as much as the Blues. The only way that works is if the Blues knowingly acquire an expiring contract they won't renew. If a trade is made with Boston, it's more likely because the Blues really like the player they're acquiring or have a real problem with the player they're dealing. The wild card is if the FO knows Bouwmeester's injury is serious and want to acquire a defenseman to cover him by dangling a forward. Maybe. We'll see.

Any salary clearing should be done by moving guys making more than they're worth unless that becomes impossible. That means Ott, Berglund, Jackman.

First, let me say that I am not saying we should trade him...

Elliot is an elite goalie, even though for some insane reason he isn't widely thought of as one...

A premiere 2-way defenseman would be a great acquisition...but that is what Petro is supposed to be...sort of.

But his name just pops to my mind when I think of valuable assets that we have that I would consider trading because of the return we would get. I think we could legitimately get more than what he is really worth, and from a business standpoint, it would be smart to move anyone in that situation.

Ok, I've boiled that down to the points I want to address. First, we agree. We shouldn't try to trade Petro. Putting an asset like that on the market actively guarantees you won't get a fair return.

Elliott isn't seen as elite because he doesn't have a track record of consistent good play. He's had two seasons with sv% over .920 and in those he played 38 and 31 games, respectively. In 4 seasons from 2008-11, he played 31, 55, 43 and 12 games and posted sv% of .902, .909, .894 and .891. That's why he's not considered elite. I feel for him recently as his problem seems to be injuries more than anything. He earned his shot, and hopefully will get to resume it soon. For the record, I'm confident in him.

I disagree about his play being inconsistent. He actually has a track record of pretty consistent play while wearing the Bluenote. And he is in his 4th season with us now.
I don't really care about what he did with a bad Colorado team before us or very early in his career with Ottawa.
I just think it's a simple matter of him getting better as he gained more experience in the NHL...and now he is in his prime.

In the lockout shortened season, Elliott had a bad start to the season, something like 5 games where he was really bad. It was attributed to him not playing at all during the lockout...and with no training camp, he just wasn't ready to go...which makes sense. That killed his stats.

After getting his act together in Peoria, he came back up and played in something like 18 games and was lights out to finish the season. If you take away the bad 5 game skid to start the year, I believe he would have finished the season with the best GAA and save % in the NHL. (I looked it up a year or two ago and that is what I remember...either way, his numbers were great if you toss out the bad 5 games he had near the start of the season) He still finished with a 2.20 GAA and a .907 save% that year. Every year he has been with us he has been great and had a GAA under 2 except for the lockout shortened year I mentioned above, which would have been under 2.00 if you throw out those 5 games early in the year where he allowed a lot of goals.
SAve % - .940, .907, .922, .931
GAA - 1.56, 2.28, 1.96, 1.82
The lockout year is in bold.
Not to mention 17 shutouts in 107 games played as a Blue. That's about one shutout every 7 games...which is very, very good.

Some may argue it's not fair to simply "throw out" his bad start to the season, but I disagree based on the fact he just wasn't ready for the season to start. It's not like he has had a stretch like that with us before or after that time...so you throw it out.

The only thing folks can legitimately say about Elliott, is:
1) That he hasn't played a lot of games in a season since being here. But that doesn't mean he can't and won't put up great numbers while playing over 50 games. That's a wait and see thing.

2) He hasn't gone anywhere in the playoffs. He wasn't great against the Kings in 11-12, but he was very good against the Kings in 12-13 with a 1.90 GAA. Quick was just better and shut down our lackluster offense. So it is what it is. I'd be 100% confident in him going against anyone in the playoffs this year.

I never heard it suggested that Petro is a top-end physical, crease-clearing defenseman. That's what I mean-and why I brought up Chara and Weber. Short of that type of player, how does trading him improve this team? By adding another forward to compete for minutes on the 3rd line? To add a dman who at best is as good as him? He's not a guy I can see moving to clear salary either until literally every team in the league is contacted about potential interest in Ott, Berglund, Pajaarvi, Jackman and the entire 4th line.

Agreed.

That last paragraph is a completely fine sentiment to have when you're in selling mode as a team. I really hope this team can do something to inspire a winning mentality among its fans-that's the only thing that's going to get us out of the shell-shocked mindset that this team needs to sell all its assets and rebuild every 5 years or so. Last couple years when the Cardinals were desperate for help in the outfield and rotation, everybody and their brother asked for Wacha and, rest his soul, Taveras. The Cardinals didn't budge because they aren't desperate; they have the confidence of winning that allows them to refuse to get reamed in pursuit of some nebulous future goal.

I think the fans in general aren't that negative. Sure, their lack of playoff success is the elephant in the room come playoff time...but I think fans in general know how good this team is and what they can do if things go their way.
To be honest. This team just needs to get a little lucky here and there in the playoffs. They have lost series' recently in which they have generally outplayed the other team...which is really frustrating. They just aren't getting the bounces in key situations, or are running into goalies that are playing out of their minds. Part of that is skill level and better players create more opportunities which in turn leads to more chances for "getting lucky".
But Tarasenko is our ace in the hole. He is the piece we have been missing. We've had good goaltending and defense, but we've been missing that stud forward that can get hot and put the team on his back in a series. Tarasenko can do that..and I'm almost certain he will do that...he's just that kind of player. Schwartz has shown flashes of that at times but isn't as consistent with it, and Lehtera is pretty damn magical with Tarasenko.

I'm really excited about the playoffs this year. I just hope we get some favorable matchups, but with how stacked the West is, there won't be many easy matchups. But that will just make it that much sweeter when we win the cup this year (knock on wood).

[glen a richter]

I think what everything boils down to is clearing space for Tarasenko. If they were in a position where it was impossible to bring him back next season, there'd be riots (more riots?) in Missouri. Especially if the team wins the Cup and then has to lose him.

[ViPeRx007]

The Blues have to sign Tarasenko, right? I mean...you can't just let him go. When you're already comparing a guy to Hull and the best the Blues have ever had, you aren't talking about just any regular player. You're talking about someone who gets a statue outside the building when they're done playing. They don't come around every day. I've said it in many other threads, but I'll say it again: they have to find the money wherever they can to sign Tarasenko. It's that simple. I think they can do it without losing big pieces, but if worse comes to worse, I'm fine losing whoever to sign him.

[STLADOGG]

I'm not saying I would do this cause I LOVE Tarasenko but.....would Tarasenko trade for #1 overall pick(McDavid) work?

[cardsfan04]

I'm not saying I would do this cause I LOVE Tarasenko but.....would Tarasenko trade for #1 overall pick(McDavid) work?

For whichever team gets the number 1 pick, I think it probably would. I wouldn't do that though. I know McDavid is supposed to be really really good. Tarasenko already is.

[glen a richter]

If the Blues truly felt like there was literally no way to pay Tarasenko on account, of course, of the lousy contracts they dished out to Berglund and Ott and weren't able to move enough bodies out to make enough space to sign Vova long term, trading him for the 1st pick would be the best option. That would be a worst case scenario though, they should never have put themselves in a situation where there wouldn't be enough cap room and it's up to them to fix it. Otherwise, McDavid, on paper, seems a suitable replacement on the cheap until they can wipe out some of the bigger salaries. On paper and on ice is two different things though. Trading Tarasenko would be moronic unless it was financially necessary. And all other options need to be exhausted first, which if that meant shopping Pietrangelo, Oshie and Backes then so be it.

[cardsfan04]

I'm really not worried about him going anywhere. I guess I'll feel better when it's finalized, but I don't see how it could play out with him not being extended here. Just don't see him leaving as a realistic possibility. I suspect it will mean the end of Jackman's tenure here unless he wants to take a big pay cut. It also might mean that we need to trade somebody like (please be Berglund). But, I've gotta think locking him up is priority number 1.

[glen a richter]

Trading Pietrangelo could work, he's playing like who knows what right now. That +/- is very unappealing. Not trading him now, of course. Trading him in the offseason.

[ecbm]

I did mean Gunnarson, not Bouwmeester. Sorry about that. And I know that scenario is not likely to happen. I'm pretty sure any trade with Boston would be a shake-up trade and yes, I could see it being something like Oshie (though I really hope it would be Berglund) for Lucic. But it won't be to clear space. Boston literally can't be a partner in a cap-clearing trade. It's impossible unless they shed some cap hit themselves first but why would they do that just to take it back again?

Curt-again, don't take me to be ragging on Elliott. I like him. Right now, I like him a lot more than Allen for sure. He's a good goalie. Yes, he's been consistent in St. Louis if you see his being sent down as about conditioning, which I think it was. (Being honest, I'm not willing to forget any games-that's the demand of the position, which I have played myself. You can't just say "forget those five games" so glibly with a goalie-teams miss the playoffs by less than that and a goalie having a bad night often costs you points.) But he's never appeared in more than 38 games in a season for the Blues and until this season was the backup. Which not only means he's not carrying the bulk of the load but also that the toughest matchups tended to go to Halak (or Miller, haha). As far as bad teams go-that doesn't determine your sv%. (And the Senators team with whom he posted .909 in '09-10 wasn't bad at all-a 94 point playoff team. Their steep decline the next season was partly due to that number dipping to .894.) His shutout numbers are very good but...so were Halak's. This season, only 8 goalies have more SO than Allen even though 28 have started more games. That tells me the SO aren't necessarily about the goalie. Only two teams allow fewer SOG per game this season than the Blues. That's exactly where the Blues finished last season; they finished second the year before. I know these stats because I often recite them to my brother who doesn't appreciate the team's defense because they're not constantly knocking guys' heads off.

I agree about the fans-I don't really mean to say they're negative. It's more about a lack of ambition. Most importantly, I'm glad we don't see that from this ownership/FO. I am still so impressed that they signed Stastny after the Miller project failed. The Blues don't need to shed core unless its for a kind of player we don't have or to shake up guys. Short of that, they need to continue to clear out the deadwood and replace them with quality players until this squad is good enough to consistently beat Chicago/Anaheim/LA. You know, like 4 out of any 7 type consistently.

As for this season's playoffs, I oscillate between excitement (like after Tuesday's game) and anxiety (like after last night's game).

[Oaklandblue]

Defense has to do a much better job of protecting whoever we have between the pipes. Given who we got in that position, there's no excuse for quite abit of what's going on. Simple as that.

[cprice12]

Curt-again, don't take me to be ragging on Elliott. I like him. Right now, I like him a lot more than Allen for sure. He's a good goalie. Yes, he's been consistent in St. Louis if you see his being sent down as about conditioning, which I think it was. (Being honest, I'm not willing to forget any games-that's the demand of the position, which I have played myself. You can't just say "forget those five games" so glibly with a goalie-teams miss the playoffs by less than that and a goalie having a bad night often costs you points.)

Nah, this is a good discussion.

Generally, I would agree with you on throwing a few games out, but that was a unique situation with Elliott. Those games were essentially his training camp and preseason.
A lot of goalies who weren't on teams during the lockout got off to bad starts that year.
When discussing how "good" Elliott is and if he is or isn't "elite" by looking at his seasonal stats, those 5 games that year play a big role because they really skewed his numbers in that shortened season. Once he got some real work in and was sent down for conditioning, he was really, really good the rest of the way and played more like he has the rest of his time here.

But he's never appeared in more than 38 games in a season for the Blues and until this season was the backup. Which not only means he's not carrying the bulk of the load but also that the toughest matchups tended to go to Halak (or Miller, haha). As far as bad teams go-that doesn't determine your sv%. (And the Senators team with whom he posted .909 in '09-10 wasn't bad at all-a 94 point playoff team. Their steep decline the next season was partly due to that number dipping to .894.) His shutout numbers are very good but...so were Halak's. This season, only 8 goalies have more SO than Allen even though 28 have started more games. That tells me the SO aren't necessarily about the goalie. Only two teams allow fewer SOG per game this season than the Blues. That's exactly where the Blues finished last season; they finished second the year before. I know these stats because I often recite them to my brother who doesn't appreciate the team's defense because they're not constantly knocking guys' heads off.

Elliott and Halak were more 1a & 1b. Halak played more games, but not by many...and if you throw in playoff games, they started about the same number of games.
And I disagree about save %.
Save % is usually used to compare goalies on different teams, which isn't always a good idea if you are JUST talking about goalies. I've always considered save % to be more of a team stat with a weighted focus on the goalie. It does, however, give a better (yet still not ideal) comparison of goalies on the same team.
If your team doesn't play well in their own end, has a piss poor defense, etc...then a goalie is going to face higher quality chances in those games and his save % will suffer, as opposed to a goalie who plays behind a good defense facing lower quality chances and therefore having a better save %. And that may very well be the case with Elliott. But honestly, by watching the games, you can tell he has really been on his game since he has been here and it's not just the defense and system we play (but that does help).

I agree about the fans-I don't really mean to say they're negative. It's more about a lack of ambition. Most importantly, I'm glad we don't see that from this ownership/FO. I am still so impressed that they signed Stastny after the Miller project failed. The Blues don't need to shed core unless its for a kind of player we don't have or to shake up guys. Short of that, they need to continue to clear out the deadwood and replace them with quality players until this squad is good enough to consistently beat Chicago/Anaheim/LA. You know, like 4 out of any 7 type consistently.

I don't think anyone is good enough to beat those teams, or us for that matter, with any level of consistency. But yeah...4 out of 7 is what we are going for...and we can do that. Hell, we don't have to do it consistently. Just once or twice in the playoffs to get to the finals and win the cup. Then I can die happy.

As for this season's playoffs, I oscillate between excitement (like after Tuesday's game) and anxiety (like after last night's game).

You'd hope they would learn from last night's game. But you never know.
That goofy goal from King just kind of sums up in a nutshell what we as Blues fans have had to put up with against the Kings and other good teams that have stood in our way of a cup over the past 25 years or so. In general, other good teams have gotten the bounces and they've had luck on their side enough times to win cups. It's odd how much the Blues as a franchise in their history haven't been lucky enough at the right times. Sure, we get lucky every now and then with this or that. But when it really counts in the playoffs? Have we ever benefited from a run of luck + good play that helped us win a bunch of close games? (because we all know that, besides being a very good team, winning a cup in most cases requires some extreme luck along the way as well) But nope. It has never happened for the Blues. Not in the last 47 years anyway.

You see the "luck factor" come into play with the Cardinals a lot in the MLB playoffs. They've had great teams and great chemistry, but man if they don't seem to have lady luck on their side quite often. Things just seem to bounce their way more than they do for other teams. I'd love to see that kind of thing happen for the Blues for a while. I'd say we're way overdue for things to finally start bouncing our way. We have the great team...we just need some luck on our side for a change.