ecbm wrote:I think there's some whistling past the graveyard here. Indeed, in a league where Stastny commands $7M at 29 years old and GMs do things like give Shea Weber 14-year offer sheets it is quite possible someone will give one to #91 at $6-8.5M per. There's also a tendency to assume that the methods of the last couple front offices here will continue to be successful forever. Fair enough, but worth considering that #91 represents a different level in terms of hockey and marketing upside from anyone else the Blues have had come through lately. And consider that the sort of team with cap space to make that kind of offer will likely have a stockpile of picks and a GM who might immediately have the thought I did: 2 firsts, a second and a third can equal Berglund, Paajarvi, Jay McClement and Chris Butler. I'd have no problem giving up that for generational talent like Vlad even if you might lose the odd Oshie or Erik Johnson in there-especially if I had a stockpile of picks and/or worked for a team that had had nothing to be excited about for years.
Not saying it's going to happen but after the Sobotka debacle last year and the panic moves that cascaded from that-I would hope the Blues FO is at least somewhat rethinking how they approach contract negotiations.
This is spot on and something I would be wary of.
It's a situation where a team with the cap space may do it just to F with STL knowing our cap constraints.
ecbm wrote:I think there's some whistling past the graveyard here. Indeed, in a league where Stastny commands $7M at 29 years old and GMs do things like give Shea Weber 14-year offer sheets it is quite possible someone will give one to #91 at $6-8.5M per. There's also a tendency to assume that the methods of the last couple front offices here will continue to be successful forever. Fair enough, but worth considering that #91 represents a different level in terms of hockey and marketing upside from anyone else the Blues have had come through lately. And consider that the sort of team with cap space to make that kind of offer will likely have a stockpile of picks and a GM who might immediately have the thought I did: 2 firsts, a second and a third can equal Berglund, Paajarvi, Jay McClement and Chris Butler. I'd have no problem giving up that for generational talent like Vlad even if you might lose the odd Oshie or Erik Johnson in there-especially if I had a stockpile of picks and/or worked for a team that had had nothing to be excited about for years.
Not saying it's going to happen but after the Sobotka debacle last year and the panic moves that cascaded from that-I would hope the Blues FO is at least somewhat rethinking how they approach contract negotiations.
I'm sure that they reflect on every deal they make, good and bad alike, to see what they're doing well and what they can do better. No doubt that happened with Sobotka too, but let's not overstate it. We lost a 3rd liner. It's not in the same ballpark as letting Tarasenko get away. That won't happen.
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin
2017-2018 Official LGB Sponsor of Jake Allen
It doesn't matter if they want to let it happen or not. You think if a team with a boatload of cap room, let's say Carolina for instance (I don't know their cap situation, but it's just an example) offered Tarasenko 7 years, 70 million he wouldn't jump all over that? He'd say "no thanks, I want to stay in St. Louis"? And then we'd be in a lurch because there's no way that contract could be matched. No way.
The totally biased announcers on the national broadcast last weekend referred to him as one of the most dynamic young goal scorers in the league... you better hope the Blues are willing to pay for his services. He's showing signs of being the most dynamic offensive player this team has ever seen.
glen a richter wrote:It doesn't matter if they want to let it happen or not. You think if a team with a boatload of cap room, let's say Carolina for instance (I don't know their cap situation, but it's just an example) offered Tarasenko 7 years, 70 million he wouldn't jump all over that? He'd say "no thanks, I want to stay in St. Louis"? And then we'd be in a lurch because there's no way that contract could be matched. No way.
I think they will find a way to match any reasonable offer. I don't think that offer is very realistic though. That would take a team with $10M in cap space that is also willing to suddenly give out a big contract (which seems like a rare match to being with) and forfeit 4 1st rounders to boot. I don't think that's a realistic scenario.
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin
2017-2018 Official LGB Sponsor of Jake Allen
No one's going to offer sheet Tarasenko because of the draft picks they would lose and it would be substantial. With the season he's having it would make sense from his side to hold off on a deal so he can continue to put up huge numbers and therefore increase his value and asking price. His agent may be asking for $8M per and I can see the Blues front office saying no to that and rather than cause a distraction now just wait until the season ends. Do I think he'll be an elite player the majority of his career? Yes. However this is his breakout year and he hasn't been in the league long so it's risky for the front office to give him a long term deal with huge money cause there is a real risk that this is a fluke year and not the norm. Another 2 years like this would have proven he can sustain this performance. As a fan you just have to hope he's not a Kovalchuk in his assessment of his value. I would offer him $6M per for 2 years and see what happens. My guess is that he and his agent want the big deal and terms now.
ecbm wrote:I think there's some whistling past the graveyard here. Indeed, in a league where Stastny commands $7M at 29 years old and GMs do things like give Shea Weber 14-year offer sheets it is quite possible someone will give one to #91 at $6-8.5M per. There's also a tendency to assume that the methods of the last couple front offices here will continue to be successful forever. Fair enough, but worth considering that #91 represents a different level in terms of hockey and marketing upside from anyone else the Blues have had come through lately. And consider that the sort of team with cap space to make that kind of offer will likely have a stockpile of picks and a GM who might immediately have the thought I did: 2 firsts, a second and a third can equal Berglund, Paajarvi, Jay McClement and Chris Butler. I'd have no problem giving up that for generational talent like Vlad even if you might lose the odd Oshie or Erik Johnson in there-especially if I had a stockpile of picks and/or worked for a team that had had nothing to be excited about for years.
Not saying it's going to happen but after the Sobotka debacle last year and the panic moves that cascaded from that-I would hope the Blues FO is at least somewhat rethinking how they approach contract negotiations.
I'm sure that they reflect on every deal they make, good and bad alike, to see what they're doing well and what they can do better. No doubt that happened with Sobotka too, but let's not overstate it. We lost a 3rd liner. It's not in the same ballpark as letting Tarasenko get away. That won't happen.
That's exactly the sort of dismissive, defensive thinking that isn't reflection and I hope doesn't represent the full depth of the FO's self-analysis. Whatever he was (maybe third line in the full lineup but right now he'd be filling in on the 2nd instead of the ineffective duo of Stastny & Berglund with their combined $10M+ cap hit...not to mention Lehtera was a gamble as plenty of similar players have failed to translate) this team is better with Sobotka on the roster and it wouldn't have cost much. Given the tiny margins at the top of the west/league that could be important. And there are other implications. If we had him at the $2.3 he wanted and he performed as he has in the NHL he could also be moved to make cap space. Good luck doing that with Berglund or Ott-the front office made more work for itself. They need to think about how to avoid that. Not like they can say: whatever we've been doing, keep at it with no deviation since we've won everything there is to win...
Kerfuffle wrote:No one's going to offer sheet Tarasenko because of the draft picks they would lose and it would be substantial. With the season he's having it would make sense from his side to hold off on a deal so he can continue to put up huge numbers and therefore increase his value and asking price. His agent may be asking for $8M per and I can see the Blues front office saying no to that and rather than cause a distraction now just wait until the season ends. Do I think he'll be an elite player the majority of his career? Yes. However this is his breakout year and he hasn't been in the league long so it's risky for the front office to give him a long term deal with huge money cause there is a real risk that this is a fluke year and not the norm. Another 2 years like this would have proven he can sustain this performance. As a fan you just have to hope he's not a Kovalchuk in his assessment of his value. I would offer him $6M per for 2 years and see what happens. My guess is that he and his agent want the big deal and terms now.
That's a more reasonable analysis. Perhaps you as an outsider, however, can see how this represents a game of chicken. Though maybe you can't see that because you haven't seen as much of Tarasenko as we have-as right as you are about guys proving consistency there are those truly exceptional players where you see the quality from the start. How long did you have to watch Toews to know he's a special talent? Personally I think Tank has potential to be the best player in the world in his lifetime and I've yet to have anyone knowledgeable to whom I say that respond with "nonsense!" You're certainly right that his camp wants a big deal now but that could work out in the Blues favor as well. I dare say someone will end up paying him a whole lot when he hits FA. And I get the impression that he's confident enough to take that 12/2 deal you mention knowing he'll get paid anyway. Now the FO just needs to make that happen and do it in a way that ensures 91 will still want to sign his next deal with the Blues in a couple years.
ecbm wrote:I think there's some whistling past the graveyard here. Indeed, in a league where Stastny commands $7M at 29 years old and GMs do things like give Shea Weber 14-year offer sheets it is quite possible someone will give one to #91 at $6-8.5M per. There's also a tendency to assume that the methods of the last couple front offices here will continue to be successful forever. Fair enough, but worth considering that #91 represents a different level in terms of hockey and marketing upside from anyone else the Blues have had come through lately. And consider that the sort of team with cap space to make that kind of offer will likely have a stockpile of picks and a GM who might immediately have the thought I did: 2 firsts, a second and a third can equal Berglund, Paajarvi, Jay McClement and Chris Butler. I'd have no problem giving up that for generational talent like Vlad even if you might lose the odd Oshie or Erik Johnson in there-especially if I had a stockpile of picks and/or worked for a team that had had nothing to be excited about for years.
Not saying it's going to happen but after the Sobotka debacle last year and the panic moves that cascaded from that-I would hope the Blues FO is at least somewhat rethinking how they approach contract negotiations.
I'm sure that they reflect on every deal they make, good and bad alike, to see what they're doing well and what they can do better. No doubt that happened with Sobotka too, but let's not overstate it. We lost a 3rd liner. It's not in the same ballpark as letting Tarasenko get away. That won't happen.
That's exactly the sort of dismissive, defensive thinking that isn't reflection and I hope doesn't represent the full depth of the FO's self-analysis. Whatever he was (maybe third line in the full lineup but right now he'd be filling in on the 2nd instead of the ineffective duo of Stastny & Berglund with their combined $10M+ cap hit...not to mention Lehtera was a gamble as plenty of similar players have failed to translate) this team is better with Sobotka on the roster and it wouldn't have cost much. Given the tiny margins at the top of the west/league that could be important. And there are other implications. If we had him at the $2.3 he wanted and he performed as he has in the NHL he could also be moved to make cap space. Good luck doing that with Berglund or Ott-the front office made more work for itself. They need to think about how to avoid that. Not like they can say: whatever we've been doing, keep at it with no deviation since we've won everything there is to win...
I wasn't trying to represent the reflection they should use. I was just pointing out that it's not apples to apples when comparing how the FO approaches the two. Sobotka not being retained doesn't make me even a little bit concerned about Tarasenko slipping away. They're not comparable situations in my mind.
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin
2017-2018 Official LGB Sponsor of Jake Allen
ecbm wrote:
That's a more reasonable analysis. Perhaps you as an outsider, however, can see how this represents a game of chicken. Though maybe you can't see that because you haven't seen as much of Tarasenko as we have-as right as you are about guys proving consistency there are those truly exceptional players where you see the quality from the start. How long did you have to watch Toews to know he's a special talent? Personally I think Tank has potential to be the best player in the world in his lifetime and I've yet to have anyone knowledgeable to whom I say that respond with "nonsense!" You're certainly right that his camp wants a big deal now but that could work out in the Blues favor as well. I dare say someone will end up paying him a whole lot when he hits FA. And I get the impression that he's confident enough to take that 12/2 deal you mention knowing he'll get paid anyway. Now the FO just needs to make that happen and do it in a way that ensures 91 will still want to sign his next deal with the Blues in a couple years.
The FO has the leverage in the deal cause he's still an RFA. But it could end up getting contentious if they don't give him the big deal. Tarasenko and his agent could use the 'insult' of receiving a short bridge deal as the key to leaving when he turns FA. So in other words, "give us the big deal now. if you don't sure we'll accept the bridge offer but then we're outta here". I don't know if he's got a Scott Boras-type agent behind him on this or not. They could also use a jump to the KHL as leverage to get what they want. In the end, it's always about the money no matter who is involved.
cardsfan-fair enough. I think you may be right, but I don't see the Sobotka thing as totally unrelated: a case where the FO thought a guy was worth less than most fans did from watching his contribution and lost him because of it. (I'd put Berglund in that same basket going the other way.) That's the mistake I worry about Army & Co. making with Vlad.
ecbm wrote:
That's a more reasonable analysis. Perhaps you as an outsider, however, can see how this represents a game of chicken. Though maybe you can't see that because you haven't seen as much of Tarasenko as we have-as right as you are about guys proving consistency there are those truly exceptional players where you see the quality from the start. How long did you have to watch Toews to know he's a special talent? Personally I think Tank has potential to be the best player in the world in his lifetime and I've yet to have anyone knowledgeable to whom I say that respond with "nonsense!" You're certainly right that his camp wants a big deal now but that could work out in the Blues favor as well. I dare say someone will end up paying him a whole lot when he hits FA. And I get the impression that he's confident enough to take that 12/2 deal you mention knowing he'll get paid anyway. Now the FO just needs to make that happen and do it in a way that ensures 91 will still want to sign his next deal with the Blues in a couple years.
The FO has the leverage in the deal cause he's still an RFA. But it could end up getting contentious if they don't give him the big deal. Tarasenko and his agent could use the 'insult' of receiving a short bridge deal as the key to leaving when he turns FA. So in other words, "give us the big deal now. if you don't sure we'll accept the bridge offer but then we're outta here". I don't know if he's got a Scott Boras-type agent behind him on this or not. They could also use a jump to the KHL as leverage to get what they want. In the end, it's always about the money no matter who is involved.
To quote the road crew guy from the "Phil Rizutto Keychain" episode of Seinfeld:
yeah, it's about money
You can't just maximize leverage though. You have to keep in mind that the Blues will need to sign hockey players going forward. If they play absolute hardball with everyone (and if they're doing that with 91 I have to imagine they'll do it with everyone) and show no tendency to reward what a guy has done but stick purely to the strictures of leverage they're going to lose out on a lot. Consider Patrick Kane, who didn't at all merit the contract he was given by CHI. But with that move, the Blackhawks showed a lot of things that are important to top-end players they'll want to sign in the future: 1. contribution to success is rewarded, 2. team chemistry is important & players aren't interchangeable parts, 3. your future with the club won't be based entirely on the opinions of bean counters reading spreadsheets and 4. they'll do what it takes to keep a good team together.
I wonder if he's open to a longer, but lower AAV deal. I'd probably do 10/$60M today (just throwing that figure out there, not sure what's realistic here). Two birds with one stone by locking him up and keeping cap hit low.
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin
2017-2018 Official LGB Sponsor of Jake Allen
I would be open to giving Tarasenko a long term contract with an opt-out clause every 4rd year. I don't know if that's something that would fly in an NHL contract but I know they exist aplenty in MLB. 12 years/72 mil
Fine, 8 years, 6 mil per with an opt out halfway. Again, I'm not sure how exactly an opt out would work wiht regards to an NHL contract or if it's even allowed. But it would be ideal, if they're concerned Tarasenko won't duplicate his numbers from this season and don't want to be saddled with him long term. Personally, I think he'll only improve as Lehtera and Schwartz improve with him. What we see from that line is a fraction of what they'll produce when the three of them hit their peak in a few seasons. That's why it's critical to keep that line together. I'm thinking Hull-Janney-Shanahan good.
Earlier in the year I compared his situation to Ryan Johansen on the Jackets. Personally I think he's played himself out of that category.
It's still two basic options for the Blues: bridge contract or lock him up long term. I still think it's better for the Blues to do a 3-4 year deal at the end of this season than to sign him to a 10-14 year deal and invite catastrophe.
Thankfully, offer sheets are rare. Johansen didn't get one and those negotiations went on for a WHILE. If I'm Armstrong, I'm matching any offer sheet anyone can throw at him though. This guy can't walk. There's no way.
Official 2021-2022 LGB Sponsor of Torey Krug
Official 2021 LGB Sponsor of Brayden Schenn
Official 2018-2019 LGB Sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2018 LGB Playoff Challenge Champ
Official 2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
Official 2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Scottie Upshall
Official 2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
Last time someone tried to give a Blue an offer sheet, JD gave 'em the ol' middle finger right back. I know JD is gone, but I'd like to hope a little of that spirit is still in the organ-EYE-zation.
As I've long said though, no way Senko is getting away. We may have to let some guys go to do that, but he's staying. Chicago model....that's what we follow. You sign the core, everyone else is expendable. You keep the crown jewels. The Blues have waited too long for players like 91 and 17, so they're not going to just let them walk for some draft picks (I know we re-signed Jaden, but point remains).
My only hope is that the first cap casualties are 9 and 21. But hey, that's just me.
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Not Ott, because he is a booger-eating dumb dumb
glen a richter wrote:Fine, 8 years, 6 mil per with an opt out halfway.
There is no opt out option allowed in the CBA. There's also no reason for him to sign a deal at only $48million (8 years * 6 per) when Toews and Kane are each getting $10 million and that's the new threshold. Tarasenko is likely gonna ask for $9M per and maybe settle for $7.5M on a short bridge deal while hoping to then hit $10M per or higher on his next contract. I don't think it's a good sign that both parties couldn't reach agreement. I hate greed and that goes for Toews and Kane as well.
