Tarasenko Signed!!!! 8/$60MM

[ecbm]

You really feel Tank is more dynamic than Hull?

Far more dynamic. Brett Hull was a brilliant finisher with a lightning release but was also the definition of a 1-dimensional player: 936 points in 744 games and a -16. Hull was also an incredibly voluminous shooter in his prime. After breaking through in '88-89, over the next 8 seasons (including all of his ridiculous years) he took fewer than 300 shots once and that was only because he missed 30-odd games in '94-95.

I still see him as the best Blues player in history.

Can understand that. He's up there. Not sure I'd put him ahead of Pronger or Brian Sutter in my lifetime. I think Vlad is likely to be the best player the Blues ever had by the end of it. Hull was great, but I never thought he was the best player in the league/world. I think 91's going to be in that argument for a long time. (My dad would be bringing up Unger and Plager here but I really don't know how to compare those guys to others who I've watched.)

[dmiles2186]

Maybe I'm over-simplifying it, but if Tarasenko helps deliver the Cup to St. Louis, he's immediately the best player in franchise history. I can't state that enough. No one else in Blues history will be able to top it.

[theohall]

You really feel Tank is more dynamic than Hull?

Far more dynamic. Brett Hull was a brilliant finisher with a lightning release but was also the definition of a 1-dimensional player: 936 points in 744 games and a -16. Hull was also an incredibly voluminous shooter in his prime. After breaking through in '88-89, over the next 8 seasons (including all of his ridiculous years) he took fewer than 300 shots once and that was only because he missed 30-odd games in '94-95.

I still see him as the best Blues player in history.

Can understand that. He's up there. Not sure I'd put him ahead of Pronger or Brian Sutter in my lifetime. I think Vlad is likely to be the best player the Blues ever had by the end of it. Hull was great, but I never thought he was the best player in the league/world. I think 91's going to be in that argument for a long time. (My dad would be bringing up Unger and Plager here but I really don't know how to compare those guys to others who I've watched.)

Exactly. Hull was not a "dynamic" player. He was a great shooter and that's it. He wasn't a great skater. He didn't create space on his own. He was good at finding space and sitting in it, but not creating space. He wasn't even a mediocre two-way player until after he left St Louis. Not even that good a puck-handler. He wasn't the guy getting the puck up ice very often. (This is based on 4 years of being a season ticket holder during the Hull era - 89-92) Did Hull have a wicked slap shot? Hell, yes! Could Hull score if given any kind of space to shoot? Hell, yes! Could Hull score if he had to create the space to shoot? Not usually.

Meanwhile, Taraseko is a great shooter. Not only finds space, but creates space with either speed, stick-handling, occasionally using his size, backing guys off with his skating (Hull never did this), is good defensively (could be better, IMO), actually hits someone if the opportunity is present. In other words, Tarasenko does one hell of a lot more than Hull ever did which makes him the most dynamic skilled player in Blues history, since being dynamic is doing a variety of things well. Hull was never dynamic, but he could damn well shoot.

[cprice12]

This organization has had some outstanding players play here and I think Tank is already the most dynamic of the bunch. More dynamic than Hull, Pronger, MacInnis, Shanahan, Turgeon, etc.

I agree with the rest of your post but I cut it down in length here to respond to this piece. You really feel Tank is more dynamic than Hull? I look at the numbers for Hull that he put up for you guys and it's just mouthwatering - I don't think Tank or anyone dethrones Hull - I still see him as the best Blues player in history. I don't remember the backstory on how or why he left but I do remember being shocked that he wasn't a Blues for life.

They have two different styles.
Tank is far more dynamic while Hull was pretty one dimensional as a sniper. He did develop into a pretty good passer over time though.
Hull also rarely created things on his own. He relied heavily on others to feed him the puck. Look at any Hull highlight reel and the vast majority of his goals on that reel will be be someone feeding him the puck and him burying it. Hull was a master at getting open and finding a seam, and his shot was so quick, hard and accurate. I loved watching him play...but he wasn't dynamic enough to beat guys one on one, to turn guys inside out, go end to end or stuff like that. That just wasn't his game. He wasn't as skilled in those areas.

Hull's prime was also in a different era where scoring was up and defenses weren't built like they are today and goaltending was a shell of what it is today. That's not a knock on Hull...but if you compare scoring back then to scoring today, it's no contest.
Tank is quite frankly a far better/faster skater, and a better stickhandler with far more deaks in his arsenal... and he can create things all by himself. Plus he plays a more physical game than Hull ever did.

Tank can score via the one timer & snapshot like Hull did (but Hull's release is superior...I've never seen someone with that consistent of a quick release...crazy), but Tank can also put the team on his back and go in one on three and beat everyone with deaks and cutbacks and then bury it top shelf.

Hull was the better sniper with that crazy fast release...maybe the best sniper of all time if we are looking at individual tools.
Tank is far more dynamic and has more tools at his disposal and is the better player...at least so far.

[glen a richter]

Comparing Tarasenko to Hull isn't fair chiefly because there's no way Tarasenko will ever pot 86 in a season. Not that he can't, but that the NHL style today makes it impossible. If you transported Tarasenko back to the late 80's, early 90's, damn straight he flirts with 80, 90 a season. I almost suggested 100, but it's never been done and it would be the height of arrogance to suggest he could be the first to do so.

In this era, I wouldn't doubt he could score 50 a season in his prime, maybe flirt with 60.

[Oaklandblue]

Comparing Tarasenko to Hull isn't fair chiefly because there's no way Tarasenko will ever pot 86 in a season. Not that he can't, but that the NHL style today makes it impossible. If you transported Tarasenko back to the late 80's, early 90's, damn straight he flirts with 80, 90 a season. I almost suggested 100, but it's never been done and it would be the height of arrogance to suggest he could be the first to do so.

In this era, I wouldn't doubt he could score 50 a season in his prime, maybe flirt with 60.

It's VERY possible. People give alot of credit to Brett, and as much as it's deserved, Adam Oates deserves just as much credit for his role. For all the names that come up, Turgeon, Shannahan, etc. I hardly ever hear anyone speak of Oates contribution to Brett and the Note and I think that's a borderline crime.

I honestly expect Tank to get close to or meet Hull's numbers provided Tank continues being able to challenge shots alone, which he most definently will and players like Lehtera and Schwartz continue to improve and contribute to assists for him and there's no reason not to believe they will.

[cprice12]

Comparing Tarasenko to Hull isn't fair chiefly because there's no way Tarasenko will ever pot 86 in a season. Not that he can't, but that the NHL style today makes it impossible. If you transported Tarasenko back to the late 80's, early 90's, damn straight he flirts with 80, 90 a season. I almost suggested 100, but it's never been done and it would be the height of arrogance to suggest he could be the first to do so.

In this era, I wouldn't doubt he could score 50 a season in his prime, maybe flirt with 60.

You can most certainly compare the two...you just can't use stats to do it.

[cardsfan04]

I want to see Tarasenko do his thing for a little while longer before I put him ahead of Hull, but I have a feeling he's on his way there. And, agree with the others that he's more dynamic. Hull was phenomenal at sniping, perhaps the best ever. But, Tarasenko has so many other parts of his game.

[goon attack]

If the idiots in the league office would raise the crossbar by two inches and reduce the size of goalie pads, we could go back to hockey being a fun, high-scoring affair once again.

But no... they want the game to remain boring as hell.

I can just see the NHL in the year 3000. The average goalie will be 6' 9" 280 pounds, and the goal will be the same size. Most games will end 1-0 or 2-1. Fighting will be illegal land Tampax will be the official sponsor of the league.

btw... comparing Tank to Hull and acting like he's the next Stamkos is way premature. Yes, I hope he nets 60 freakin' goals. But a guy like Stamkos dropped a 50 spot at age 20. That's an otherworldly skill set in today's NHL. Tank is totally kick ass, and he may be able to net 50, but I see him more as a 40g 85p guy, tops, but a complete player who can lead this team to success.

Stamkos in Hull's era maybe could have netted 100. I doubt Hull could have netted 60 in this day and age.

[ecbm]

If the idiots in the league office would raise the crossbar by two inches and reduce the size of goalie pads, we could go back to hockey being a fun, high-scoring affair once again.But no... they want the game to remain boring as hell.I can just see the NHL in the year 3000. The average goalie will be 6' 9" 280 pounds, and the goal will be the same size. Most games will end 1-0 or 2-1. Fighting will be illegal land Tampax will be the official sponsor of the league.

So you basically want soccer with increased scoring and fighting?

Comparing Tarasenko to Hull isn't fair chiefly because there's no way Tarasenko will ever pot 86 in a season. Not that he can't, but that the NHL style today makes it impossible. If you transported Tarasenko back to the late 80's, early 90's, damn straight he flirts with 80, 90 a season.

Coming up, he got compared him to Mogilny a lot. He'd have lit up the league in the '80s.

[gaijin]

If the idiots in the league office would raise the crossbar by two inches and reduce the size of goalie pads, we could go back to hockey being a fun, high-scoring affair once again.But no... they want the game to remain boring as hell.I can just see the NHL in the year 3000. The average goalie will be 6' 9" 280 pounds, and the goal will be the same size. Most games will end 1-0 or 2-1. Fighting will be illegal land Tampax will be the official sponsor of the league.

So you basically want soccer with increased scoring and fighting?

Comparing Tarasenko to Hull isn't fair chiefly because there's no way Tarasenko will ever pot 86 in a season. Not that he can't, but that the NHL style today makes it impossible. If you transported Tarasenko back to the late 80's, early 90's, damn straight he flirts with 80, 90 a season.

Coming up, he got compared him to Mogilny a lot. He'd have lit up the league in the '80s.

I can see that. More like a Mogilny or a Bure than a Hull.

That's Pavel, not Valeri.

[dmiles2186]

I came back to read through this thread since our boy is killing it so far. This contract looks even better now that's he's atop the goal leaders. So a rundown...

Leading the league in goals? Check
Human highlight reel? Check
Clutch goals when we are tied are trailing? Check
Face of the franchise? Check
Humble and determined to win a Cup? Check

[Robb_K]

Comparing Tarasenko to Hull isn't fair chiefly because there's no way Tarasenko will ever pot 86 in a season. Not that he can't, but that the NHL style today makes it impossible. If you transported Tarasenko back to the late 80's, early 90's, damn straight he flirts with 80, 90 a season. I almost suggested 100, but it's never been done and it would be the height of arrogance to suggest he could be the first to do so.

In this era, I wouldn't doubt he could score 50 a season in his prime, maybe flirt with 60.

He might well do that THIS season!

[theohall]

Heard two different NHL radio guys over the weekend suggesting Tarasenko for the Hart trophy.

1) Tarasenko - due to his clutch scoring when tied or trailing. He has points on 42% of the Blues goals and has scored 24% of the goals himself.
2) Kane - due to having points on 53% of the Hawks goals and having scored 22% of the goals himself.

[Kerfuffle]

Heard two different NHL radio guys over the weekend suggesting Tarasenko for the Hart trophy.

1) Tarasenko - due to his clutch scoring when tied or trailing. He has points on 42% of the Blues goals and has scored 24% of the goals himself.
2) Kane - due to having points on 53% of the Hawks goals and having scored 22% of the goals himself.

Kane also had the longest point streak in over 20 years, and most ever by a USA-born citizen at 26 games in a row. That's a huge plus in his column. If both guys are close in goals and points at season's end Kane would get the nod for that reason. But if Tarasenko has like 15-20 more goals then Kane then I believe Tarasenko would get it. Honestly I don't care about the individual stuff though - the only thing that matters is the cup.

[theohall]

Heard two different NHL radio guys over the weekend suggesting Tarasenko for the Hart trophy.

1) Tarasenko - due to his clutch scoring when tied or trailing. He has points on 42% of the Blues goals and has scored 24% of the goals himself.
2) Kane - due to having points on 53% of the Hawks goals and having scored 22% of the goals himself.

Kane also had the longest point streak in over 20 years, and most ever by a USA-born citizen at 26 games in a row. That's a huge plus in his column. If both guys are close in goals and points at season's end Kane would get the nod for that reason. But if Tarasenko has like 15-20 more goals then Kane then I believe Tarasenko would get it. Honestly I don't care about the individual stuff though - the only thing that matters is the cup.

Their argument for Tarasenko is while Kane has lots of points/goals, many of them don't have the same impact as scoring goals when tied or down 1 goal.

[glen a richter]

I'm not looking at the Hawks stats right now, but I'd reckon the difference between Kane's point and/or goal total and those of the other guys on the team isn't as wide as it is on the Blues. Tarasenko doesn't have a Toews alongside him. His "Toews" is injured and out until February, earliest. Kane isn't singlehandedly responsible for the Hawks being successful, neither is Tarasenko to the Blues but moreso than Kane.

[cardsfan04]

Heard two different NHL radio guys over the weekend suggesting Tarasenko for the Hart trophy.

1) Tarasenko - due to his clutch scoring when tied or trailing. He has points on 42% of the Blues goals and has scored 24% of the goals himself.
2) Kane - due to having points on 53% of the Hawks goals and having scored 22% of the goals himself.

Kane also had the longest point streak in over 20 years, and most ever by a USA-born citizen at 26 games in a row. That's a huge plus in his column. If both guys are close in goals and points at season's end Kane would get the nod for that reason. But if Tarasenko has like 15-20 more goals then Kane then I believe Tarasenko would get it. Honestly I don't care about the individual stuff though - the only thing that matters is the cup.

If Tarasenko has 15-20 more goals than Kane, Kane won't even be in the discussion. That point streak is impressive, but I don't think that's going to be super important at the end of the year when looking at the season as a whole.

[cprice12]

Heard two different NHL radio guys over the weekend suggesting Tarasenko for the Hart trophy.

1) Tarasenko - due to his clutch scoring when tied or trailing. He has points on 42% of the Blues goals and has scored 24% of the goals himself.
2) Kane - due to having points on 53% of the Hawks goals and having scored 22% of the goals himself.

Kane also had the longest point streak in over 20 years, and most ever by a USA-born citizen at 26 games in a row. That's a huge plus in his column. If both guys are close in goals and points at season's end Kane would get the nod for that reason. But if Tarasenko has like 15-20 more goals then Kane then I believe Tarasenko would get it. Honestly I don't care about the individual stuff though - the only thing that matters is the cup.

If Tarasenko has 15-20 more goals than Kane, Kane won't even be in the discussion. That point streak is impressive, but I don't think that's going to be super important at the end of the year when looking at the season as a whole.

Yeah, the point streak is impressive, no question, but there is no reason why that would be a deciding factor in the Hart trophy voting.
If Jake Allen sets the record for consecutive shutout minutes in a season, yet finishes a chunk behind in GAA & Save % to someone else, Allen isn't winning the Vezina. That just ain't happening.
If Tarasenko finishes 15-20 goals ahead of Kane (doubtful that happens...but still, for the sake of discussion), there is no way in hell Kane's point streak would give him the Hart over Tarasenko. Not a chance. 15-20 goals would be a very substantial difference. We'd be talking like 50 goals vs. 30-35 or something like that.

[theohall]

sorry, but I have to give the MVP to Kane right now.

Chicago has 138 Goals For with the 3rd not over yet...

Kane has 69 points.

He has points on over half of the Blackhawks goals. That's ridiculous in this era!!!

And I can't stand the douche bag potential rapist.