Tage Thompson's ceiling

[Bluesnatic27]

And I completely disagree with your assumption that the only way to improve is to draft top 10, there is just an overwhelming amount of evidence disproving that. When we get 4/5 years down the line and Schenn and Mike Hoffman are on other teams, we’re going to wonder why we suck so bad, but the only explanation will be that we traded 4 1st round picks in 2 years. Teams don’t get back into the playoffs that way. Boston didn’t do that, Tampa didn’t do that. No team who is trying to improve and succeeding is trading away their top talent. If it’s a Hall-for-Larsson deal, count me in, otherwise there’s higher-impact, lower cost moves we can make to keep improving in the meantime.

I think you misinterpreted what I said.

I never said it was impossible for the Blues to improve the pool unless they draft top-10. I said it's difficult to. The way to make the Blues pool better is to add better talent to it. Adding another Musil or Blais isn't going to make the pool any better because the impact those players will have will most likely be in bottom-6 or maybe middle-6 positions. I think the same of Stevens, Sanford, and even Foley. The Blues have an abundance of prospect depth, but adding more of the same will not improve the pool anymore than it is. If the Blues were to add a legitimate top-6 scorer, a top-4 stalwart, or anything of that caliber, to the pool, than that is a different story. However, it is difficult to find that after the top-10. There's insurmountable evidence suggesting that. Bill Armstrong is one of the best head scouts in hockey right now and even he drafts a Kurker or Vannelli from time-to-time. I say this all the time, but scouting is hard. I chose my words carefully when writing that post in an effort to convey that point while also not belittling Bill in the process.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

But in those 2 years, we still drafted Kostin and Thomas in the first, as well as got two young players in Foley and Sanford who the Blues like going forward. We were trading expiring assets for firsts + prospects, which freed us up to use those firsts to fill gaps with players with term. We would not have moved 2 firsts for Schenn if we did not have one coming back for Reaves and one from the Shattenkirk trade. We do not move a first for a winger this year if we don't have one from Stastny. Let's pretend we do move Tage and a first for Hoffman, and then look at the sum total of the trades.

1) Shattenkirk for 1st + Sanford
2) Reaves + 2nd for 1st
3) 2 1sts for Schenn + cap space(Lehtera dump)
4) Stastny for Foley + 1st
5) Hypothetical: Thompson + 1st for Hoffman

We give up 3 expiring assets (Shattenkirk, Stastny and Reaves), 3 first round picks, 1 first round equivalent prospect and a 2nd. In return we receive Schenn, Hoffman, cap space, 2 non-1st round prospects and 3 first round picks. Let's say the firsts cancel (some were higher picks than others, but for simplicity), and let's ignore the expiring assets and vets. We look only toward futures. We gave up a 2nd and Thompson for Foley and Sanford. That is what we swapped in terms of futures (as well as moving a few spots difference between different picks on some of the picks). Playing the zero sum game, we give up 2 future pieces for 2 other future pieces. Granted Thompson is worth more than Sanford (although you are high on Zacky), but its still not giving away 4 first round picks to end up with nothing in a few years like you paint it. Getting 2 players with term at positions of need, while not dipping too far into the futures basket is exactly what contending teams should do.

Let’s explore that universe for a second. Let’s say we trade Tage+1st for Hoffman. Hoffman comes back, we have him for one season. Does he fix all of our problems? No, not at all. So we’re likely in the same boat again next season, out of the playoffs. He decides “why would I extend on a team that’s missed on 2 playoffs straight,” plus it’s his last big shot at a juicy free agent contract, so he goes to FA and signs elsewhere.

Now we’re still in need of a right-shot top-6 forward, and we’ve traded (A) Tage Thompson, who fits that description, and (B) another opportunity to draft that player. We’ve traded potentially 20+ years of team control for one year of Hoffman, and one of those players has everything that we’re desperate to find in a trade right now.

There’s no guarantee that any of these prospects work out. I’d say there’s a pretty good chance that at least several of them do. I’m not trading one of the top 4 from our group for one year of a vet who won’t re-sign here anyways. And I’m not getting caught with my hands in my pants next summer thinking “where oh where did our forward prospects go?”

We haven’t reaped the rewards on any of these guys yet. Selling several years of that benefit, even if we have to be patient to realize it, is not worth acquiring one year (or two even) of a vet who can do it now. If it’s a Pochiro+3rd for Yakupov type deal, I’m all in, but there’s no long-term benefit for selling high now.

 

[Majorityof1]

Let’s explore that universe for a second. Let’s say we trade Tage+1st for Hoffman. Hoffman comes back, we have him for one season. Does he fix all of our problems? No, not at all. So we’re likely in the same boat again next season, out of the playoffs. He decides “why would I extend on a team that’s missed on 2 playoffs straight,” plus it’s his last big shot at a juicy free agent contract, so he goes to FA and signs elsewhere.

Now we’re still in need of a right-shot top-6 forward, and we’ve traded (A) Tage Thompson, who fits that description, and (B) another opportunity to draft that player. We’ve traded potentially 20+ years of team control for one year of Hoffman, and one of those players has everything that we’re desperate to find in a trade right now.

There’s no guarantee that any of these prospects work out. I’d say there’s a pretty good chance that at least several of them do. I’m not trading one of the top 4 from our group for one year of a vet who won’t re-sign here anyways. And I’m not getting caught with my hands in my pants next summer thinking “where oh where did our forward prospects go?”

We haven’t reaped the rewards on any of these guys yet. Selling several years of that benefit, even if we have to be patient to realize it, is not worth acquiring one year (or two even) of a vet who can do it now. If it’s a Pochiro+3rd for Yakupov type deal, I’m all in, but there’s no long-term benefit for selling high now.

That's looking at it with total pessimism. I could say, what if we don't trade for Hoffman? Tage bombs, Kyrou bombs, Sanford breaks every bone in his body and screams "The kids...they called me Mr. Glass" and becomes a super-villain, we still lack offense, Tarasenko demands to be traded, management is sick of it and sells the team to Melnyk who institutes an internal cap at the floor. Pietrangelo and Schenn are sick of waiting for prospects and sign elsewhere, plus we can't sign them spending to the floor. Then we are in Ottawa's shoes.

You obviously don't make the trade if you don't think Hoffman will be a fix or willing to re-sign, or if you think Thompson is only a year out from being something special. Its a gamble either way, but you got to calculate the odds and lay your bet. My point was that even if we take that bet, we have not severely cut into our prospect pool because we gained assets through other trades which put us in a position to take that gamble. A bad bet is a bad bet even if you can afford to lose the money. Any bet is a bad bet if you can't afford to lose the money. My point is that because we traded for excess currency, we can afford to lose. We still need to make the smartest bet we can.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

That's looking at it with total pessimism. I could say, what if we don't trade for Hoffman? Tage bombs, Kyrou bombs, Sanford breaks every bone in his body and screams "The kids...they called me Mr. Glass" and becomes a super-villain, we still lack offense, Tarasenko demands to be traded, management is sick of it and sells the team to Melnyk who institutes an internal cap at the floor. Pietrangelo and Schenn are sick of waiting for prospects and sign elsewhere, plus we can't sign them spending to the floor. Then we are in Ottawa's shoes.

You obviously don't make the trade if you don't think Hoffman will be a fix or willing to re-sign, or if you think Thompson is only a year out from being something special. Its a gamble either way, but you got to calculate the odds and lay your bet. My point was that even if we take that bet, we have not severely cut into our prospect pool because we gained assets through other trades which put us in a position to take that gamble. A bad bet is a bad bet even if you can afford to lose the money. Any bet is a bad bet if you can't afford to lose the money. My point is that because we traded for excess currency, we can afford to lose. We still need to make the smartest bet we can.

Right. My point is that we don’t know what we’re trading yet. We have a big prospect pool now, which is great and I’m really happy about that, but we don’t know which pieces are going to stick and which aren’t. We could very well get to training camp in the fall and it’s an all-out brawl for those “magic two” spots between Foley and Sanford. Sanny apparently looked great coming into camp last year. Then, yeah, trading Thompson becomes a better option. Or, Thompson could come in and take that 2RW spot all by himself and boom our problems are solved on their own, in which case trading him now, and throwing in a first for the privilege, is probably the dumbest, most short-sighted thing we could do.

You’re absolutely right, it’s a gamble. But I’m not anteing up until I know what cards I have in my hand. I’d rather just keep doing what we’re doing, and building up the number of cards we get to play (I have no idea what game I’m analogizing right now lol) through the draft and trading older vets for prospects. That’s the best course of action, imo.

We aren’t one player away.

 

[stl76]

I think the real bottom line here comes down to how the coaching staff/front office view and evaluate our current prospects. There's no right or wrong answer necessarily, just depends on how the situation unfolds in the coming weeks/months.

It depends on the trading market, which in turn depends on how the playoffs go and what teams decide to do after they're knocked out. It depends on the draft which in turn depends on the lottery, our scouting staff, and choices from other teams. It depends on free agency, which in turns depends on who is available and what move other teams make.

Should we trade Thompson? Definitely maybe, depending on everything.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

The Islanders traded Nino Niederreiter after a disappointing rookie year, and it really didn’t seem to help them long-term. And they could “afford to” move him because they had a good farm system. Had they just been patient, it would have been much better for them in the long run

 

[Majorityof1]

Right. My point is that we don’t know what we’re trading yet. We have a big prospect pool now, which is great and I’m really happy about that, but we don’t know which pieces are going to stick and which aren’t. We could very well get to training camp in the fall and it’s an all-out brawl for those “magic two” spots between Foley and Sanford. Sanny apparently looked great coming into camp last year. Then, yeah, trading Thompson becomes a better option. Or, Thompson could come in and take that 2RW spot all by himself and boom our problems are solved on their own, in which case trading him now, and throwing in a first for the privilege, is probably the dumbest, most short-sighted thing we could do.

You’re absolutely right, it’s a gamble. But I’m not anteing up until I know what cards I have in my hand. I’d rather just keep doing what we’re doing, and building up the number of cards we get to play (I have no idea what game I’m analogizing right now lol) through the draft and trading older vets for prospects. That’s the best course of action, imo.

We aren’t one player away.

You must be a pretty poor poker player if you are unwilling to ante, much less bet, before you know all your cards. In fact, you can't even play most types of poker without anteing first on some hands. In hold'em, a rotating pair of players pay the blinds before they see anything, and everyone bets before they see all but 2 cards. They bet two more times before the last card is revealed. It is rare that the first large bet comes after the river (the last card when all the cards are out), unless one player really fools the other slow playing his hand. In most cases, nobody is betting a ton when they know they got nothing, or they know the other player is sitting on a made hand. The big bets are made when there is still uncertainty. Your odds are better than their odds, so you bet and try to get them chasing. If you always make the smart bet with the odds, you win more than you lose. If you never bet, you pilfer away your stack on the blinds.

Likewise, nobody is giving value for prospects that have already failed or fallen well behind their development curve. Look at Schmaltz. He is a decent RHD, and still has potential. But because he has been languishing in the AHL stuck behind some very good players, his value has dwindled away to almost nothing. Every turn of the card where we didn't trade him, the value of our hand got less and less. You risk the same thing happening by waiting on all our prospects. What value does Tage have in 2-3 years if he is still struggling to crack the NHL? Not as much as he does today. Probably as much as Sanford, who isn't getting near what we gave up for him now and that was just a rental.

While we aren't one player away, we are only a few players away. If trading for Hoffman is the only move, then yea, I agree, we probably should hold on. But if we somehow get another top 6 through free agency, Thomas plays like a solid 3C, Allen doesn't repeat his worst career season and Fabbri comes back healthy, then we are absolutely a contender. We have a much better shot at the playoffs to support management that continues to spend top the cap than we would be holding out until Tage Thomspon develops. If there is a deal on the table for Tage to make this team better, you take it if you believe he is still a few years out from making that same difference.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

You must be a pretty poor poker player if you are unwilling to ante, much less bet, before you know all your cards. In fact, you can't even play most types of poker without anteing first on some hands. In hold'em, a rotating pair of players pay the blinds before they see anything, and everyone bets before they see all but 2 cards. They bet two more times before the last card is revealed. It is rare that the first large bet comes after the river (the last card when all the cards are out), unless one player really fools the other slow playing his hand. In most cases, nobody is betting a ton when they know they got nothing, or they know the other player is sitting on a made hand. The big bets are made when there is still uncertainty. Your odds are better than their odds, so you bet and try to get them chasing. If you always make the smart bet with the odds, you win more than you lose. If you never bet, you pilfer away your stack on the blinds.

Likewise, nobody is giving value for prospects that have already failed or fallen well behind their development curve. Look at Schmaltz. He is a decent RHD, and still has potential. But because he has been languishing in the AHL stuck behind some very good players, his value has dwindled away to almost nothing. Every turn of the card where we didn't trade him, the value of our hand got less and less. You risk the same thing happening by waiting on all our prospects. What value does Tage have in 2-3 years if he is still struggling to crack the NHL? Not as much as he does today. Probably as much as Sanford, who isn't getting near what we gave up for him now and that was just a rental.

While we aren't one player away, we are only a few players away. If trading for Hoffman is the only move, then yea, I agree, we probably should hold on. But if we somehow get another top 6 through free agency, Thomas plays like a solid 3C, Allen doesn't repeat his worst career season and Fabbri comes back healthy, then we are absolutely a contender. We have a much better shot at the playoffs to support management that continues to spend top the cap than we would be holding out until Tage Thomspon develops. If there is a deal on the table for Tage to make this team better, you take it if you believe he is still a few years out from making that same difference.

By that same logic we should be trading all of our prospects right now. They’re all a few years away from contributing, so why wait? A Husso-Kostin-Walman package should net us really good return. A Kyrou-Schmaltz-Fitpatrick package would return a good haul too. Why even keep your draft picks at that point? Why did we just sign up for 5 years of the Rampage, when we could have just gotten by reassigning a few bubble players here and there to random teams? If players can’t contribute right away, by your logic, then there are players more valuable than them and we should be doing everything we can to get those other players. Why stop at just Tage?

You don’t do that because developing players is how you improve. If you just cut and run at the first sign of danger, you’re never going to be more than a bubble team. I’d much rather see us stay the course, develop the guys we have, and keep adding to that pool, so that we don’t have to keep going down this path every other offseason. “OMG there’s a hole here, quick trade a prospect!” If you do it right, every time you lose somebody, or make the gamble of trading for a top-6 guy, you have another wave of guys *ready to go*. We aren’t there yet, so we should keep building until we are at that point. I’d rather build a team that can compete for several years, over and over again, than have to constantly dip into the reserves to try to accelerate our way out of the problem. That’s something that sustaining teams (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, NYR) do to keep their window open. Our window isn’t open right now. We aren’t going to compete for a cup next year, and even if we do, we need to be able to keep competing for that cup the year after, and the year after that. Trading the only forward prospect with any substantial NHL experience before we’ve seen what he can actually do is self-defeating

 

[Brian39]

There is difference for cup contender then trying to be. Blues have linked for good players, but what happened. Blues have traded good assests away like Oshie and Shattenkirk. What we've left from those deals? Sandford?

Eh, Armstrong doesn't have tools to make last push for this team like those other real Stanley Cup contenders have.

You are aware that the 1st we got for Shatty was part of the Schenn trade, right? I've seen you say multiple times that Army had to pay a 1st to get rid of Lehtera, so by that logic isn't it fair to say that the Shatty trade got us 3 years of Schenn? Also, we used the 3rd rounder we got in the Oshie trade to jump up a couple spots and select Tage Thompson. I like Thompson more than the next few prospects drafted, so I see some value to that move as well.

 

[Brian39]

I'm not a big Hoffman fan, but it's pretty important to the discussion to point out that he is under contract for 2 more years, not 1. That's a pretty huge difference as it would allow us to trade him next summer if he plays a year here and isn't willing to sign an extension. I hope we don't pay the price needed for Hoffman, but it wouldn't be trading for a 1 year rental.

 

[Majorityof1]

By that same logic we should be trading all of our prospects right now. They’re all a few years away from contributing, so why wait? A Husso-Kostin-Walman package should net us really good return. A Kyrou-Schmaltz-Fitpatrick package would return a good haul too. Why even keep your draft picks at that point? Why did we just sign up for 5 years of the Rampage, when we could have just gotten by reassigning a few bubble players here and there to random teams? If players can’t contribute right away, by your logic, then there are players more valuable than them and we should be doing everything we can to get those other players. Why stop at just Tage?

You don’t do that because developing players is how you improve. If you just cut and run at the first sign of danger, you’re never going to be more than a bubble team. I’d much rather see us stay the course, develop the guys we have, and keep adding to that pool, so that we don’t have to keep going down this path every other offseason. “OMG there’s a hole here, quick trade a prospect!” If you do it right, every time you lose somebody, or make the gamble of trading for a top-6 guy, you have another wave of guys *ready to go*. We aren’t there yet, so we should keep building until we are at that point. I’d rather build a team that can compete for several years, over and over again, than have to constantly dip into the reserves to try to accelerate our way out of the problem. That’s something that sustaining teams (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, NYR) do to keep their window open. Our window isn’t open right now. We aren’t going to compete for a cup next year, and even if we do, we need to be able to keep competing for that cup the year after, and the year after that. Trading the only forward prospect with any substantial NHL experience before we’ve seen what he can actually do is self-defeating

Ah, we are playing reductio ad absurdum then. Well two can play that game. Why even bother to have established players with only a couple years left on their contracts at all. Imagine the haul of prospects Schwartz, Pietrangelo and Schenn could yield? They are only have a few years left til the end of their contracts. They could regress than leave. We might as well trade them all for prospects since prospects are how good NHL teams get better.

You don't do that because you need balance. You need prospects and young players coming in on ELCs, but you also need established players. You cannot wait forever for prospects while pissing away the core years of your established players. We have Dunn already playing and Husso, Thomas and Kyrou/Kostin coming up to fil big needs, plus others coming up for cheap depth. But we need pieces to stay competitive while they develop. Trading one piece and a draft pick is not the end of the world you are making it out to be.

And honestly, Tage just isn't that special to be that up-in-arms over. Tage and a first isn't that far off from what Winnepeg, a team you lauded for their patience, gave up for a rental in Stastny who they have no hope of re-signing. Winnipeg is still probably a year or two out from being a favorite. Yet they gave up a first and a good prospect (not first equivalent but developing well) to hopefully extend the playoff experience and give themselves a puncher's chance.

 

[Ranksu]

You are aware that the 1st we got for Shatty was part of the Schenn trade, right? I've seen you say multiple times that Army had to pay a 1st to get rid of Lehtera, so by that logic isn't it fair to say that the Shatty trade got us 3 years of Schenn? Also, we used the 3rd rounder we got in the Oshie trade to jump up a couple spots and select Tage Thompson. I like Thompson more than the next few prospects drafted, so I see some value to that move as well.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Ah, we are playing reductio ad absurdum then. Well two can play that game. Why even bother to have established players with only a couple years left on their contracts at all. Imagine the haul of prospects Schwartz, Pietrangelo and Schenn could yield? They are only have a few years left til the end of their contracts. They could regress than leave. We might as well trade them all for prospects since prospects are how good NHL teams get better.

You don't do that because you need balance. You need prospects and young players coming in on ELCs, but you also need established players. You cannot wait forever for prospects while pissing away the core years of your established players. We have Dunn already playing and Husso, Thomas and Kyrou/Kostin coming up to fil big needs, plus others coming up for cheap depth. But we need pieces to stay competitive while they develop. Trading one piece and a draft pick is not the end of the world you are making it out to be.

And honestly, Tage just isn't that special to be that up-in-arms over. Tage and a first isn't that far off from what Winnepeg, a team you lauded for their patience, gave up for a rental in Stastny who they have no hope of re-signing. Winnipeg is still probably a year or two out from being a favorite. Yet they gave up a first and a good prospect (not first equivalent but developing well) to hopefully extend the playoff experience and give themselves a puncher's chance.

Winnipeg earned the right to make those deals because they have one of the best teams in the conference, *as well as* a super deep prospect pool. The same with Tampa. The same with Boston. The same with Nashville. Pittsburgh is a special case, but still, they added because they’re contending. We are nowhere near the shape that those franchises are in. Good teams with solid prospects and a good shot of going deep can afford to make those rental deals, even if I don’t really believe in doing so (messing with team chemistry and whatnot).

We can be. We can get there. But we won’t be if we keep moving prospects out. The reason we are where we’re at right now is because we traded a bunch of prospects and picks in the early 20-teens to make a go of it with the old core. They didn’t succeed, and now we’re paying the price. And I’m ok with that given that we had a fighting chance for several years in a row there, but unless we want the same thing to happen again in 5 years, when Thomas et al are (presumably) the “new” core with no support and no depth behind them, then we need to be building that depth internally and not sending out pieces to bolster the current core. Boston didn’t do that with their young core, and now Marchand, Bergeron, Chara, and Rask, while all older and past their “primes” now, are supported by an insane amount of depth that keeps growing year after year. Because that depth keeps growing, reliably, they can afford to trade for big name rentals like Rick Nash. And with their level of performance, they’ve earned that right.

I’m just not into the idea of weakening our future core, who very well could earn the right to add a big name in time, for the sake of trying to fix things the quick way.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

Winnipeg earned the right to make those deals because they have one of the best teams in the conference, *as well as* a super deep prospect pool. The same with Tampa. The same with Boston. The same with Nashville. Pittsburgh is a special case, but still, they added because they’re contending. We are nowhere near the shape that those franchises are in. Good teams with solid prospects and a good shot of going deep can afford to make those rental deals, even if I don’t really believe in doing so (messing with team chemistry and whatnot).

We can be. We can get there. But we won’t be if we keep moving prospects out. The reason we are where we’re at right now is because we traded a bunch of prospects and picks in the early 20-teens to make a go of it with the old core. They didn’t succeed, and now we’re paying the price. And I’m ok with that given that we had a fighting chance for several years in a row there, but unless we want the same thing to happen again in 5 years, when Thomas et al are (presumably) the “new” core with no support and no depth behind them, then we need to be building that depth internally and not sending out pieces to bolster the current core. Boston didn’t do that with their young core, and now Marchand, Bergeron, Chara, and Rask, while all older and past their “primes” now, are supported by an insane amount of depth that keeps growing year after year. Because that depth keeps growing, reliably, they can afford to trade for big name rentals like Rick Nash. And with their level of performance, they’ve earned that right.

I’m just not into the idea of weakening our future core, who very well could earn the right to add a big name in time, for the sake of trying to fix things the quick way.

All fine points, I'm just going to say that you should take out Marchand from that group of "old players past their primes". The guy is coming off two back-to-back 85 point seasons and isn't 30 yet. I'd say that's pretty smack dab in his prime.

 

[BlueDream]

The way I see it is you have to compare Thompson to players you are thinking of trading him for. Are the chances of him becoming better than a guy like Hoffman high? Probably not.

Just using him as an example. I understand if you want a RH shot or a different player for some reason.

But this thought needs to be at the forefront of any trade talk. I don’t understand the point of just being like “nooo we can’t trade the prospectz!!!!1” No, there’s actually a lot of players we’d be smart to trade them for.

 

[Celtic Note]

Winnipeg earned the right to make those deals because they have one of the best teams in the conference, *as well as* a super deep prospect pool. The same with Tampa. The same with Boston. The same with Nashville. Pittsburgh is a special case, but still, they added because they’re contending. We are nowhere near the shape that those franchises are in. Good teams with solid prospects and a good shot of going deep can afford to make those rental deals, even if I don’t really believe in doing so (messing with team chemistry and whatnot).

We can be. We can get there. But we won’t be if we keep moving prospects out. The reason we are where we’re at right now is because we traded a bunch of prospects and picks in the early 20-teens to make a go of it with the old core. They didn’t succeed, and now we’re paying the price. And I’m ok with that given that we had a fighting chance for several years in a row there, but unless we want the same thing to happen again in 5 years, when Thomas et al are (presumably) the “new” core with no support and no depth behind them, then we need to be building that depth internally and not sending out pieces to bolster the current core. Boston didn’t do that with their young core, and now Marchand, Bergeron, Chara, and Rask, while all older and past their “primes” now, are supported by an insane amount of depth that keeps growing year after year. Because that depth keeps growing, reliably, they can afford to trade for big name rentals like Rick Nash. And with their level of performance, they’ve earned that right.

I’m just not into the idea of weakening our future core, who very well could earn the right to add a big name in time, for the sake of trying to fix things the quick way.

So how many more years of sitting firm do we wait?

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

So how many more years of sitting firm do we wait?

I’d at least give everything another year to shake out. With a muuuuch better situation in San Antonio, we should actually be able to start developing guys again. After a full year of total hockey ops control there, we should have a substantially better idea on where we stand with a lot of these guys.

But the truth is that it’s going to take more time than that for most of them to make it to the big club full time and contribute in important ways. Rushing them doesn’t really help our cause either (see the Oilers, and even the Yotes). Cutting ties after one year or so of pro development doesn’t make sense either. We’ve got to be patient bringing the prospects along.

Moving prospects for vets just feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul. In 2-3 years we should start legit seeing the benefits of the last couple of years of drafting and trades. And our patience, I believe, will be rewarded with crazy depth and a home grown crop of guys producing throughout the lineup, from the top line to the bottom line.

I’m not saying “do absolutely nothing.” There absolutely should be some tinkering, and I think that there’s clear opportunities to move on from guys like Gunnarsson and Sobotka and replace them with free agents and trades. For guys like that, players off the free agent heap truly would be “replacement level,” and very likely would end up being better. I just think we can accomplish our goal of improving the team from last season without jeopardizing what appears to be the team’s single greatest strength right now: futures.

I’m not selling my stocks to rent a car for the weekend, even though I really need to get somewhere. I’ll take the bus until it’s actually time to sell, and then I can own my own, much nicer car. Yeah, it might suck right now, but it’s worth it in the long run. In the meantime, we can make smaller investments to improve our situation without touching those stocks.

 

[Celtic Note]

I’d at least give everything another year to shake out. With a muuuuch better situation in San Antonio, we should actually be able to start developing guys again. After a full year of total hockey ops control there, we should have a substantially better idea on where we stand with a lot of these guys.

But the truth is that it’s going to take more time than that for most of them to make it to the big club full time and contribute in important ways. Rushing them doesn’t really help our cause either (see the Oilers, and even the Yotes). Cutting ties after one year or so of pro development doesn’t make sense either. We’ve got to be patient bringing the prospects along.

Moving prospects for vets just feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul. In 2-3 years we should start legit seeing the benefits of the last couple of years of drafting and trades. And our patience, I believe, will be rewarded with crazy depth and a home grown crop of guys producing throughout the lineup, from the top line to the bottom line.

I’m not saying “do absolutely nothing.” There absolutely should be some tinkering, and I think that there’s clear opportunities to move on from guys like Gunnarsson and Sobotka and replace them with free agents and trades. For guys like that, players off the free agent heap truly would be “replacement level,” and very likely would end up being better. I just think we can accomplish our goal of improving the team from last season without jeopardizing what appears to be the team’s single greatest strength right now: futures.

I’m not selling my stocks to rent a car for the weekend, even though I really need to get somewhere. I’ll take the bus until it’s actually time to sell, and then I can own my own, much nicer car. Yeah, it might suck right now, but it’s worth it in the long run. In the meantime, we can make smaller investments to improve our situation without touching those stocks.

 

[The Note]

I’d at least give everything another year to shake out. With a muuuuch better situation in San Antonio, we should actually be able to start developing guys again. After a full year of total hockey ops control there, we should have a substantially better idea on where we stand with a lot of these guys.

But the truth is that it’s going to take more time than that for most of them to make it to the big club full time and contribute in important ways. Rushing them doesn’t really help our cause either (see the Oilers, and even the Yotes). Cutting ties after one year or so of pro development doesn’t make sense either. We’ve got to be patient bringing the prospects along.

Moving prospects for vets just feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul. In 2-3 years we should start legit seeing the benefits of the last couple of years of drafting and trades. And our patience, I believe, will be rewarded with crazy depth and a home grown crop of guys producing throughout the lineup, from the top line to the bottom line.

I’m not saying “do absolutely nothing.” There absolutely should be some tinkering, and I think that there’s clear opportunities to move on from guys like Gunnarsson and Sobotka and replace them with free agents and trades. For guys like that, players off the free agent heap truly would be “replacement level,” and very likely would end up being better. I just think we can accomplish our goal of improving the team from last season without jeopardizing what appears to be the team’s single greatest strength right now: futures.

I’m not selling my stocks to rent a car for the weekend, even though I really need to get somewhere. I’ll take the bus until it’s actually time to sell, and then I can own my own, much nicer car. Yeah, it might suck right now, but it’s worth it in the long run. In the meantime, we can make smaller investments to improve our situation without touching those stocks.

The crux of the issue is this though: the Blues best opportunity to “get where they’re trying to go” ,to borrow your phrase, is pretty much only guaranteed for the next two years. You’ve got Schenn and Pietrangelo to sign then, the year after, Schwartz will be an UFA. Not to mention they’re all -as well as Tarasenko- smack dab in the middle of their prime years. Now, I think the Blues will try to sign all 3 and will more than likely retain Schwartz and Petro. But these guys are human and money talks. Nothing’s for sure, and if they can get more money someplace else and want to pursue that, I certainly can’t blame them.

I haven’t seen a single person suggest the Blues should be trading multiple picks and prospects for bandaids. Not to be crass but we’re talking about trading a good-not-great prospect and what looks to be a late first. I wouldn’t exactly call that mortgaging the future. I know you’re harping on the depth thing, but based on your posts it appears you think the Blues have 5? 6? prospects that will almost definitely be NHL players? I would consider that depth. Remarkable depth at that.

I mean say you’re able to get a top 6 guy in here with 2-3 years remaining on their deal. Worst case scenario they make it clear they won’t re-sign here and you flip them for a first down the road. I just don’t think, based on where the team is at now, it’s reasonable to sit on your ass for a year or two aside from dumping Sobotka, Gunnarsson, etc. from the roster. This is in no way saying to cut young guys out of the equation. Bring them along as they show they belong on the roster. But to hamstring more or less the same core that’s 2 years removed from a WCF run in hopes we have a quarter of an NHL team waiting in San Antonio is silly. This roster isn’t that far away.

Edit for this disclaimer- this is all in no way, shape, or form to say there’s no value in having a good prospect system. If they earn a spot ala Dunn, Fabbri, Parayko, etc. by all means play them. But this fear of trading a prospect and a late pick for proven talent when the team needs it is bizarre.

 

[Stealth JD]

You said it, @Celtic Note

He's not the best colorman in the league for nothing, folks.

 

[Majorityof1]

I’d at least give everything another year to shake out. With a muuuuch better situation in San Antonio, we should actually be able to start developing guys again. After a full year of total hockey ops control there, we should have a substantially better idea on where we stand with a lot of these guys.

But the truth is that it’s going to take more time than that for most of them to make it to the big club full time and contribute in important ways. Rushing them doesn’t really help our cause either (see the Oilers, and even the Yotes). Cutting ties after one year or so of pro development doesn’t make sense either. We’ve got to be patient bringing the prospects along.

Moving prospects for vets just feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul. In 2-3 years we should start legit seeing the benefits of the last couple of years of drafting and trades. And our patience, I believe, will be rewarded with crazy depth and a home grown crop of guys producing throughout the lineup, from the top line to the bottom line.

I’m not saying “do absolutely nothing.” There absolutely should be some tinkering, and I think that there’s clear opportunities to move on from guys like Gunnarsson and Sobotka and replace them with free agents and trades. For guys like that, players off the free agent heap truly would be “replacement level,” and very likely would end up being better. I just think we can accomplish our goal of improving the team from last season without jeopardizing what appears to be the team’s single greatest strength right now: futures.

I’m not selling my stocks to rent a car for the weekend, even though I really need to get somewhere. I’ll take the bus until it’s actually time to sell, and then I can own my own, much nicer car. Yeah, it might suck right now, but it’s worth it in the long run. In the meantime, we can make smaller investments to improve our situation without touching those stocks.

I don't want to beat this too much to death because we fundamentally just disagree. But despite that I still respect you as an intelligent poster who I just happen to often disagree with, so I want to try to see where you are coming form. So take these points as questions rather than arguments.

1st bold: Will 3 years of being a borderline playoff team not be too late? With our current signed players and free agent stop-gaps, we will continue to spend a considerable amount, hemorrhaging money with playoff misses and lowered fan involvement. Further, we will have to re-sign our entire core minus Parayko and Tarasenko within 3 years. Will Schwartz, Schenn and Pietrangelo want to re-sign with a team that has been mediocre for the past 3 years. That's not to mention that those prospects will all be off of their ELCs, and at the minimum be on bridges, thus negating some of the benefit of cheap talent. With management potentially spending less, players needing more and the potential loss of 3 key figures, it seems risky.

2nd bold: Trade with what? If we can't touch futures where are we going to find the assets to find replacements. Do you think its possible to do hockey trades where we get the better player across multiple positions? Going the free agent route general leads to overpaying, which feeds into my point above.

3rd bold: Ok, this isn't understanding your point. I just need to point out this is an awful analogy. People often balance their portfolio and sell stocks to take care of immediate needs. Plus, you are over-simplifying it, missing key factors and setting up sort of a strawman (just a weekend, really?). Here is my refined analogy with the hockey equivalents in parentheses. Let's say you absolutely need a car for your job (need the team to perform to keep revenue's high and keep management spending). The bus doesn't go to your job (can't be a contender on the cheap) and you would have to take a lesser paying job instead (perennial playoff bubble team). You have the stocks of several start-up companies (prospects) that are competing to be first to market in the exact same industry (play the same position). There is only room for a very few companies in that industry (Limited roster spots in NHL). So the success of one or two, will adversely effect the performance of the rest (block their spot). These stocks are 2-3 years from really exploding or tanking (developing quickly or slowly). Once they tank, they have no value (see Rattie). You have the advice of some pretty smart individuals that are experts in the field (Bill Armstrong and player development coaches) who tell you which companies are more likely to be the biggest booms (chances of becoming the better NHL player). Someone is willing to sell you a car that will last 2 years (trade for a player with a little term), and could last longer with some extra maintenance (extention) if things work out. Do you sell the stocks your experts think have the least chance of success in order to keep your job until the more promising stocks mature?

Final question: You keep saying this team is not one move away from contention. I agree, but think we are 2 external moves and moderately good internal luck away. How bad do you think this team is? How many moves do we need to be a contender given we had about everything go wrong and still missed the playoffs by one game?

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I don't want to beat this too much to death because we fundamentally just disagree. But despite that I still respect you as an intelligent poster who I just happen to often disagree with, so I want to try to see where you are coming form. So take these points as questions rather than arguments.

1st bold: Will 3 years of being a borderline playoff team not be too late? With our current signed players and free agent stop-gaps, we will continue to spend a considerable amount, hemorrhaging money with playoff misses and lowered fan involvement. Further, we will have to re-sign our entire core minus Parayko and Tarasenko within 3 years. Will Schwartz, Schenn and Pietrangelo want to re-sign with a team that has been mediocre for the past 3 years. That's not to mention that those prospects will all be off of their ELCs, and at the minimum be on bridges, thus negating some of the benefit of cheap talent. With management potentially spending less, players needing more and the potential loss of 3 key figures, it seems risky.

2nd bold: Trade with what? If we can't touch futures where are we going to find the assets to find replacements. Do you think its possible to do hockey trades where we get the better player across multiple positions? Going the free agent route general leads to overpaying, which feeds into my point above.

3rd bold: Ok, this isn't understanding your point. I just need to point out this is an awful analogy. People often balance their portfolio and sell stocks to take care of immediate needs. Plus, you are over-simplifying it, missing key factors and setting up sort of a strawman (just a weekend, really?). Here is my refined analogy with the hockey equivalents in parentheses. Let's say you absolutely need a car for your job (need the team to perform to keep revenue's high and keep management spending). The bus doesn't go to your job (can't be a contender on the cheap) and you would have to take a lesser paying job instead (perennial playoff bubble team). You have the stocks of several start-up companies (prospects) that are competing to be first to market in the exact same industry (play the same position). There is only room for a very few companies in that industry (Limited roster spots in NHL). So the success of one or two, will adversely effect the performance of the rest (block their spot). These stocks are 2-3 years from really exploding or tanking (developing quickly or slowly). Once they tank, they have no value (see Rattie). You have the advice of some pretty smart individuals that are experts in the field (Bill Armstrong and player development coaches) who tell you which companies are more likely to be the biggest booms (chances of becoming the better NHL player). Someone is willing to sell you a car that will last 2 years (trade for a player with a little term), and could last longer with some extra maintenance (extention) if things work out. Do you sell the stocks your experts think have the least chance of success in order to keep your job until the more promising stocks mature?

Final question: You keep saying this team is not one move away from contention. I agree, but think we are 2 external moves and moderately good internal luck away. How bad do you think this team is? How many moves do we need to be a contender given we had about everything go wrong and still missed the playoffs by one game?

First of all thank you, I respect you as well. I fully understand my opinions typically aren’t “with the herd” here, but I try to be the voice of reason, or at least provide genuine counter-points.

1) I don’t know for sure. I frankly just dgaf what the fans want though, they aren’t running a team. I’ve seen and read enough from the prototypical Blues fan on social media to know not to trust their advice. I don’t believe that any of our core is going to rot on the vine though. Yes, the contract situations with Petro, Schwartz and Schenn (etc) puts a clock on some things. But at the same time... this is the bed we made, and we have to lie in it to a degree. No proven NHL-ready prospects, no secondary scoring to deal from, fragile goaltending and defense. I hope people are seeing in the parallel “trade Parayko” discussion, that we can’t really make a significant trade without opening another hole somewhere else. That is, “unless” ____. Unless Fabbri comes back unscathed. Unless Schmaltz explodes. Unless Thomas can come in right away. That’s a lot of “ifs” to hang your hat on. I’d rather see if we can’t get to at least a little bit of certainty somewhere first. “Blais and Thompson are on pace for 40 points each, so we can absolutely afford to trade Steen/Thompson/whatever.” I don’t think we can’t accomplish that before Petro needs a new contract.

2) I think we can make do with what we’ve got on the trade market. There will be a market for Sobotka, Berglund, Gunnar, whoever. It won’t get you Sam Reinhart, but we can improve by taking advantage of motivated sellers. There is a lot of coaching/management/ownership turnover happening this summer around the league, a lot of increasingly frustrated builders. We will be able to find something in there. There are absolutely some diamonds in the rough that we can find in free agency, that I don’t think will be prohibitively expensive. John Moore, Calvin de Haan, Thomas Hickey, Christian Folin. Those guys are improvements on our back end that surely won’t bring in Bouwmeester money.

3) it was probably a bad metaphor, it was just the first thing that popped into my head. The general point: don’t sell low on potentially high-value prospects just to bandaid things. If our window *really is* just two years, then after those two years won’t we suck again? Especially if we just spent good prospects on guys that are also going to be needing a new contract then? Now we’ve made an all-in run at the cup, and we’ll watch the next wave of Backes/Brouwer walk away for nothing to make room for the next core, who will also have no depth behind them because we traded away *their depth too*. It becomes an endless cycle. It all comes back to what we committed to doing when we let Backes walk. I just want to see us follow through on it.

 

[Celtic Note]

I think we are in a position now where I don’t see a big 4. I see a top three consisting of Thomas, Kyrou and Husso. Those are the three that we don’t consider moving with out a rare return. The rest are available to me, as the upside is just ok. We have a lot of prospect depth that can continue to funnel in, even if we move some of them.

Thompson needs seasoning, but his skill set is not one that I see as any better than 2nd line RWer and I don’t see him on the high end of that range either. If we can move him before his real value shows, then it would be a positive, assuming the player coming back is better than the Thompson projection, fills a main need and has some term.

Kostin hasn’t shown much. I find him to have been over hyped. He seems like a guy who has the flashes that get people excited, but it’s almost entirely based on those flashes. I haven’t given up on him, but it’s hard to project a guy without a good resume as a lock for NHL status.

What I really don’t want to have happen is another instance similar to Rattie, where a guy shows promise early on, then reveals to those closely watching that he won’t amount to much, but still could hold trade value to a team less familiar with the things you see with nightly viewings. We should have traded Rattie after his second AHL year. That’s about the time I was ready to move on.

Then we get to the likes of Barbashev and Sanford. Both seem like players you could find via FA for a relatively affordable price. Barbashev has been wildly inconsistent throughout his career. Sanford is a guy who shows some tools, but has some major hurdles. Both guys probably don’t hold much trade value, I they may be a bit of a mute point. Overall, I believe all the attention about our prospect pool has lead to some inflated expectations. Across the league we see younger players entering the league and say why not ours too? It’s a valid question, but aside from our “top 3”, I am not so sure we have many if any guys that I feel the need to hold out significant hope for.

I have long been an advocate of building through the draft and I still am very much in that court. But, as our team is constructed, how our prospect pool looks and the timeline for our core line up, I am not seeing a lot of answers internally, unless a lot of things go our way with a returning Fabbri and multiple prospects hitting their ceilings. That seems like a lot of hope to place in areas that are very much significant gambles.

 

[Celtic Note]

You said it, @Celtic Note

He's not the best colorman in the league for nothing, folks.

Ha. Not sure what happened there.

 

[Blueston]

I think we are in a position now where I don’t see a big 4. I see a top three consisting of Thomas, Kyrou and Husso. Those are the three that we don’t consider moving with out a rare return. The rest are available to me, as the upside is just ok. We have a lot of prospect depth that can continue to funnel in, even if we move some of them.

I see big gap between Thomas and Kyrou. Thomas is untouchable, Kyrou is intriguing but not unavailable. If I get ROR or Getzlaf or someone of that quality, Kyrou can be part of package for sure. Goalies are so hard to predict, but would be real hard to deal Husso with our goaltending situation uncertain. I would basically only deal Husso if he was part of deal to bring back top starting goalie.