2016-17 Blues Discussion Thread Part II

[Brian39]

It's at least a little ironic that you're confident that people will objectively assess the prospects and make level-headed decisions about the value of the return package, but you're still insistent on hating on Copley. This is the guy who is the best / most NHL-ready goalie prospect (by a country mile, in my opinion) we've got right now, just for the record.

Copley is the most NHL ready goalie prospect we have, but Husso is miles ahead as the best goalie prospect we have.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Copley is the most NHL ready goalie prospect we have, but Husso is miles ahead as the best goalie prospect we have.

I also hope that that is true. His potential is probably higher, but you never know how goalies will progress. People were sure about Binnington only a few years ago, and he hasn't progressed quite as well as people (myself included) anticipated

 

[Brian39]

I also hope that that is true. His potential is probably higher, but you never know how goalies will progress. People were sure about Binnington only a few years ago, and he hasn't progressed quite as well as people (myself included) anticipated

Goalies are incredibly difficult to predict, so I'm not trying to say that Husso is by any means a lock. With that said, what he did last year in Finland was significantly more impressive than anything Bishop, Allen, Copley, and Binnington had done by 21 years old. He led the league in GAA and SV%, won goalie of the year and then elevated his game for the playoffs in a pretty decent professional league. He also has a World Junior gold medal. Those (IMO) are more impressive than CHL/NCAA accomplishments and support the common opinion of 'experts' that he is the best goalie prospect in our organization.

Again, none of this makes him a lock, but there is certainly more than just intuition to support his claim as our best goalie prospect. It doesn't hurt that he is currently outplaying Binnington and giving Copley a run for his job in Chicago. He is progressing nicely this season and will hopefully be the starter in the AHL next year.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Goalies are incredibly difficult to predict, so I'm not trying to say that Husso is by any means a lock. With that said, what he did last year in Finland was significantly more impressive than anything Bishop, Allen, Copley, and Binnington had done by 21 years old. He led the league in GAA and SV%, won goalie of the year and then elevated his game for the playoffs in a pretty decent professional league. He also has a World Junior gold medal. Those (IMO) are more impressive than CHL/NCAA accomplishments and support the common opinion of 'experts' that he is the best goalie prospect in our organization.

Again, none of this makes him a lock, but there is certainly more than just intuition to support his claim as our best goalie prospect. It doesn't hurt that he is currently outplaying Binnington and giving Copley a run for his job in Chicago. He is progressing nicely this season and will hopefully be the starter in the AHL next year.

Absolutely, I agree with you. I don't think there's any doubt that he has the highest ceiling of any of our current goalie corps. But with that said, he is also still getting used to North American ice, and he has said in several interviews this year so far (both on the Mavs and the Wolves) that it's challenging for him. We hope he grows through that, learns to adjust his game accordingly, and eventually post similar numbers to what he posted in Finland. It takes most goalies a long time to do that, if they ever do. So, yes, he has a very impressive resume to date, but he has some hurdles to jump along the way, too. Until he posts '13-'14 Jake Allen numbers, I'm not going to let myself get too excited. I really hope he fulfills his potential, but until he does and our cup runneth over with goalie prospects, I don't mind drafting guys like Fitzpatrick that might give him a run for his money some day.

 

[Brian39]

Absolutely, I agree with you. I don't think there's any doubt that he has the highest ceiling of any of our current goalie corps. But with that said, he is also still getting used to North American ice, and he has said in several interviews this year so far (both on the Mavs and the Wolves) that it's challenging for him. We hope he grows through that, learns to adjust his game accordingly, and eventually post similar numbers to what he posted in Finland. It takes most goalies a long time to do that, if they ever do. So, yes, he has a very impressive resume to date, but he has some hurdles to jump along the way, too. Until he posts '13-'14 Jake Allen numbers, I'm not going to let myself get too excited. I really hope he fulfills his potential, but until he does and our cup runneth over with goalie prospects, I don't mind drafting guys like Fitzpatrick that might give him a run for his money some day.

I never have an issue drafting goalies. Barring the very best of the best talents, you are looking 5+ years out when you draft a goalie. It is such a fickle position that very, very few teams really know what their goalie situation will look like 5 years out.

My issue with the Copley acquisition is that the time when he is expected to mature doesn't really match our goaltending plan/timeline. Even before the extension, it was clear that Allen was going to get at least 2-3 years as our starter to see if he could hack it. For the sake of this discussion, lets assume he fails. By the time we are ready to move on from him, Binnington and/or Husso will be at the point in their development where they need a serious look at the NHL level. Are we going to delay a 25+ Binnington or a 24 year old Husso to give a 26 or 27 year old Copley a shot?

Maybe Copley winds up as the best of the 3, but it is just an odd thing to target in a trade given our plan with Allen and the age of our existing goalie prospects. Best case scenario (from Copley's standpoint) is that Allen implodes again next year, we give up on him exceedingly early in the contract and then Copley is a 1 or 2 year stopgap before Husso is given his chance to earn the job. Even in this scenario, Copley is a UFA after his 1st NHL season and we may lose him. Realistically, Allen gets at least 2 more seasons in our organization, Copley turns UFA before getting any real NHL experience and Husso is nearly 25 before getting a taste of the NHL. If Copley was brought in to be a stopgap in case Allen failed, why on Earth was Hutton given 2 years? You can't seriously tell me that a 2 year commitment was needed to get an average backup as a UFA.

TLDR: Given the team's commitment to Allen (which was clearly the plan at the time we acquired Copley) and the age of the prospects already in our system, Copley has very little chance of ever getting a serious chance at the #1 job here. Why target that in a trade?

Edit: With all of this said, I'm really high on Copley. I'd be fine with it if we had just given Hutton a 1 year deal and made Copley the backup next year. I just don't get the trade in light of the decisions made and contracts given out since the trade.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I never have an issue drafting goalies. Barring the very best of the best talents, you are looking 5+ years out when you draft a goalie. It is such a fickle position that very, very few teams really know what their goalie situation will look like 5 years out.

My issue with the Copley acquisition is that the time when he is expected to mature doesn't really match our goaltending plan/timeline. Even before the extension, it was clear that Allen was going to get at least 2-3 years as our starter to see if he could hack it. For the sake of this discussion, lets assume he fails. By the time we are ready to move on from him, Binnington and/or Husso will be at the point in their development where they need a serious look at the NHL level. Are we going to delay a 25+ Binnington or a 24 year old Husso to give a 26 or 27 year old Copley a shot?

Maybe Copley winds up as the best of the 3, but it is just an odd thing to target in a trade given our plan with Allen and the age of our existing goalie prospects. Best case scenario (from Copley's standpoint) is that Allen implodes again next year, we give up on him exceedingly early in the contract and then Copley is a 1 or 2 year stopgap before Husso is given his chance to earn the job. Even in this scenario, Copley is a UFA after his 1st NHL season and we may lose him. Realistically, Allen gets at least 2 more seasons in our organization, Copley turns UFA before getting any real NHL experience and Husso is nearly 25 before getting a taste of the NHL. If Copley was brought in to be a stopgap in case Allen failed, why on Earth was Hutton given 2 years? You can't seriously tell me that a 2 year commitment was needed to get an average backup as a UFA.

TLDR: Given the team's commitment to Allen (which was clearly the plan at the time we acquired Copley) and the age of the prospects already in our system, Copley has very little chance of ever getting a serious chance at the #1 job here. Why target that in a trade?

Edit: With all of this said, I'm really high on Copley. I'd be fine with it if we had just given Hutton a 1 year deal and made Copley the backup next year. I just don't get the trade in light of the decisions made and contracts given out since the trade.

Well your internal logic here doesn't really hold. You say that goaltending is a fickle position and then argue against stocking that position for (quality) depth. Hutts was an expansion draft signing, and I imagine we're hoping that he might get taken (and if he keeps his play up, he very well might be), hence the extra year of control. We already saw the value of having another NHL-ready goalie this season (and twice last season) when Hutts/Allen were collapsing and we brought Copley in to spot start. Copley's performance in that game was very good, considering the situation he was being called into. No, he didn't pull a Hamburgler, but he held his own. I would be very curious to see how he did behind this team currently. I don't think that we would "delay" Husso from getting looks in at the NHL if he was ready, just because Copley was older per se. If Copley is more capable (as he is today) of holding down an NHL net, he gets it. If Husso is (which he is likely to be in the future), he gets it. This is the same as arguing that we shouldn't be signing any more centers because it might obstruct Barbashev from getting a shot. If he's ready, he'll win the job. If he's not, we are wise to get somebody who is. Given the fact that Binnington (the 2nd closest to NHL-ready) has faltered this season in his development, the Copley acquisition seems shrewd to me. Maybe not ideal, but shrewd. And right in synch with the timeline we needed him in.

Say Allen/Hutton gets injured, and we're forced to fill that hole: would you rather have Copley who is used to our system and able to perform relatively well in it, or a (if we didn't have Copley) Brodeur/Nilsson who we might have to give up assets for, and rush into our team and pray to god they don't falter? For me, it's easily the first option. In that case, we still need 2 AHL goalies, and I'd rather have those goalies be our assets who figure into our long-term plans (even if it's just as insurance), than a guy like say Climie who doesn't and is basically developing for a different organization using our resources. At least with Copley/Binnington, there is the potential that they stay with our organization long-term, and we have more potential to see a return on that investment. Free Agents are fine as stopgaps, but in the grand scheme of things I'd much, much rather have that roster spot filled by one of our guys.

There's value to having goalie depth, look at Washington/New York for example: nobody is knocking off Holtby or Lundqvist any time soon, but they have enviable reserves of goalies that fill in as needed, and eventually (in the case of Talbot and yeah even Copley for WSH) can be used to bring back other assets. Yes, those two organizations filled their ranks through the draft, and yes that is preferable, but we had swung and missed with both Lundstrom and Tremblay, and didn't have the capacity in 2013 to get a goalie there, so we had a gap. I might have preferred getting a different asset than Copley at the time, but given the results (WCF with Brouwer playing a big role, Copley being our current 3rd string, and the 3rd round pick helping us land Thompson), I'm pretty happy with it.

 

[Brian39]

Well your internal logic here doesn't really hold. You say that goaltending is a fickle position and then argue against stocking that position for (quality) depth. Hutts was an expansion draft signing, and I imagine we're hoping that he might get taken (and if he keeps his play up, he very well might be), hence the extra year of control. We already saw the value of having another NHL-ready goalie this season (and twice last season) when Hutts/Allen were collapsing and we brought Copley in to spot start. Copley's performance in that game was very good, considering the situation he was being called into. No, he didn't pull a Hamburgler, but he held his own. I would be very curious to see how he did behind this team currently. I don't think that we would "delay" Husso from getting looks in at the NHL if he was ready, just because Copley was older per se. If Copley is more capable (as he is today) of holding down an NHL net, he gets it. If Husso is (which he is likely to be in the future), he gets it. This is the same as arguing that we shouldn't be signing any more centers because it might obstruct Barbashev from getting a shot. If he's ready, he'll win the job. If he's not, we are wise to get somebody who is. Given the fact that Binnington (the 2nd closest to NHL-ready) has faltered this season in his development, the Copley acquisition seems shrewd to me. Maybe not ideal, but shrewd. And right in synch with the timeline we needed him in.

Say Allen/Hutton gets injured, and we're forced to fill that hole: would you rather have Copley who is used to our system and able to perform relatively well in it, or a (if we didn't have Copley) Brodeur/Nilsson who we might have to give up assets for, and rush into our team and pray to god they don't falter? For me, it's easily the first option. In that case, we still need 2 AHL goalies, and I'd rather have those goalies be our assets who figure into our long-term plans (even if it's just as insurance), than a guy like say Climie who doesn't and is basically developing for a different organization using our resources. At least with Copley/Binnington, there is the potential that they stay with our organization long-term, and we have more potential to see a return on that investment. Free Agents are fine as stopgaps, but in the grand scheme of things I'd much, much rather have that roster spot filled by one of our guys.

There's value to having goalie depth, look at Washington/New York for example: nobody is knocking off Holtby or Lundqvist any time soon, but they have enviable reserves of goalies that fill in as needed, and eventually (in the case of Talbot and yeah even Copley for WSH) can be used to bring back other assets. Yes, those two organizations filled their ranks through the draft, and yes that is preferable, but we had swung and missed with both Lundstrom and Tremblay, and didn't have the capacity in 2013 to get a goalie there, so we had a gap. I might have preferred getting a different asset than Copley at the time, but given the results (WCF with Brouwer playing a big role, Copley being our current 3rd string, and the 3rd round pick helping us land Thompson), I'm pretty happy with it.

Again, I'm not upset about having Copley, but going after him instead of a B-level center prospect in the Oshie trade just doesn't make sense. AHL/NHL tweeners for injury depth are easy to get without giving up an asset. I don't think the value of having a guy of Copley's ability right now is worth giving up a good asset in a trade. They are often available for free or for a 6th round pick. Ignoring future potential, we easily could have gotten a goalie on par with Copley for nothing at some point in the last year and a half. The only reason to trade for Copley is potential upside.

My point is that his potential upside just doesn't line up with our plans. By the time he will get a chance on this squad he will be a pending UFA and that has been the case since the day he got here.

 

[Oberyn]

Reading Friedman's 30 Thoughts and he mentioned how pleased how well received Berube has been on the Wolves. He also mentioned a rumor that Berube may be on the Blues bench next season, presumably as an assistant i'm guessing.

 

[MissouriMook]

The next 10 games should go a long way in determining the fate of this team, because if they are still playing well by mid March I could see them going 10-2, 11-1 or even 12-0 in their last 12 games.

 

[TruBlu]

The next 10 games should go a long way in determining the fate of this team, because if they are still playing well by mid March I could see them going 10-2, 11-1 or even 12-0 in their last 12 games.

Unfortunately, all of these years of 20+ picks in the first round have depleted our farm of potentially successful prospects for the future. Our cup window will be closed in a few years with no new talent coming in outside of a hockey trade or trading our firsts. Losing our guys with no return was only successful last year because we were legitimate contenders to win the cup.

We can't go all in this year and lose Shatty for nothing or it gets even shorter. We are in a good spot to build around our current core that is entering its prime for one final push before we go through a rebuild. Getting a decent return for Shatty is probably the most important decision that DA has had to face as far as his long term vision for the team. I just hope he makes the right decision. On one hand, I'd love to go on a tear, but on the other I would rather have the better draft pick as I don't think we will do anything in the post season. I would enjoy being a wild card and going out west, though, for the postseason. Seeing the same 2 or 3 teams every year in the postseason is wearing thin.

 

[Celtic Note]

Unfortunately, all of these years of 20+ picks in the first round have depleted our farm of potentially successful prospects for the future. Our cup window will be closed in a few years with no new talent coming in outside of a hockey trade or trading our firsts. Losing our guys with no return was only successful last year because we were legitimate contenders to win the cup.

We can't go all in this year and lose Shatty for nothing or it gets even shorter. We are in a good spot to build around our current core that is entering its prime for one final push before we go through a rebuild. Getting a decent return for Shatty is probably the most important decision that DA has had to face as far as his long term vision for the team. I just hope he makes the right decision. On one hand, I'd love to go on a tear, but on the other I would rather have the better draft pick as I don't think we will do anything in the post season. I would enjoy being a wild card and going out west, though, for the postseason. Seeing the same 2 or 3 teams every year in the postseason is wearing thin.

This is how I see it as well, unless we get lucky a few more times and get more players like Fabbri that fall into our laps. For the health of the franchise, I am guessing Stillman needs is to be competitive for a while longer.

Reading Friedman's 30 Thoughts and he mentioned how pleased how well received Berube has been on the Wolves. He also mentioned a rumor that Berube may be on the Blues bench next season, presumably as an assistant i'm guessing.

That would be interesting. But who would be out? Thomas? Wilson?

 

[Zamadoo]

I don't necessarily agree with the notion that we've picked at 20+ too many times it depleted our farm system of good prospects. The Miller and Shattenkirk trades costed us two first rounders since 2010. We still have Shatty (who turned out to be great), and may get that 1st back. No 1st in 2015 was bad, but we nabbed Vince Dunn in the 2nd. Our other first rounders at 20+ have been Schmaltz, Fabbri, and Thompson. Schmaltz is about to make the NHL roster, Fabbri made it in his draft year, and Thompson looks promising. Sure, we could use more Tarasenkos at #16, but it's incorrect to say our 20+ first rounders have not or will not be successful.

 

[Brian39]

Unfortunately, all of these years of 20+ picks in the first round have depleted our farm of potentially successful prospects for the future. Our cup window will be closed in a few years with no new talent coming in outside of a hockey trade or trading our firsts. Losing our guys with no return was only successful last year because we were legitimate contenders to win the cup.

We can't go all in this year and lose Shatty for nothing or it gets even shorter. We are in a good spot to build around our current core that is entering its prime for one final push before we go through a rebuild. Getting a decent return for Shatty is probably the most important decision that DA has had to face as far as his long term vision for the team. I just hope he makes the right decision. On one hand, I'd love to go on a tear, but on the other I would rather have the better draft pick as I don't think we will do anything in the post season. I would enjoy being a wild card and going out west, though, for the postseason. Seeing the same 2 or 3 teams every year in the postseason is wearing thin.

I vehemently disagree with this assessment. Since 2010, we have drafted Schwartz, Tarasenko, Schmaltz, Fabbri , and Thompson in the 1st round. Tarasenko is unquestionably a top 5 talent from his draft and Schwartz is very likely top 10. It is a little early to tell, but I think Fabbri is a top 10 talent from his draft (he is at the moment, but the jury is still out long-term). This organization has done an incredible job of obtaining top flight talent with mid-late round picks.

Schmaltz may or may not develop into a top 4 D man, but that draft is shaping up to be pretty weak. Yak was the 1st overall and the standouts 5 year later are almost all D men. 3 guys from the top 10 in this draft have yet to play 82 NHL games. Even with a pick between 5-10, it would have taken a fair bit of luck to get a difference maker. Some were available, but there were arguably more busts than booms. The jury is still very much out on the most recent draft as only 5 guys stuck on an NHL roster.

Trading three 1st rounders in a 7 year period (while also gaining one to draft Tarasenko) has hurt our prospect depth, but I don't think we have been at all hurt by drafting mid-late 1st round. Of our 5 mid-late picks in the last 7 years, 3 of them are currently top 10 players from their draft and the jury is still completely out on the most recent draft. Even assuming Thompson can't crack top 10 in his draft, that is a 60% success rate of drafting high end talent. Even consistently drafting between 5-10 wouldn't guarantee that success.

I agree that we should trade Shatty, but I disagree that we are anywhere near a final push before a rebuild. This team absolutely isn't going to start a rebuild while Petro, Tarasenko, Schwartz, and Steen are all under contract and Parayko/Fabbri are under team controlled RFA years. 2020 is the absolute earliest I could see us starting a rebuild and it would likely be a 'retool' if we weren't able to extend Petro. We don't have a ton of top flight prospects outside the NHL right now, but we are in good shape in terms of B level prospects that can join the NHL soon and be cheap depth. Barbashev looked completely capable of being a 3C next season and still has 2C upside. Agostino was a nice little gift that looks capable of cheap 3rd line minutes. I'd imagine Schmaltz is called up if Shatty is moved and he seems ready to be fine as a cheap 3rd pairing guy. 2 years out, there is a very good chance that one of Dunn/Vanelli/Lindbohm is capable of quality NHL minutes and I'd wager that one of Thompson or Kyrou could give 3rd line minutes in 3 years.

The prospect pool could be better, but cheap depth from within is an important part of sustaining a competitive roster. We have some work to do and some of it is going to cost. We need to find a top 6 center, we need to move Lehtera and Allen needs to take the next step. If those 3 things happen, this team has a several year window as a contender.

 

[Oberyn]

This is how I see it as well, unless we get lucky a few more times and get more players like Fabbri that fall into our laps. For the health of the franchise, I am guessing Stillman needs is to be competitive for a while longer.



That would be interesting. But who would be out? Thomas? Wilson?

Maybe Thomas goes back up to the press box and Berube slots in? Not sure what Berube's expertise is.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

The firsts we've traded away since 2011 have turned into Duncan Siemens (COL), Emile Poirier (CGY), and Jack Roslovic (WPG). In return, we've gained Shattenkirk, Stewart, Rattie, Ott, Miller, and Bouwmeester. That's not a bad swap.

Duncan Siemens for Ty Rattie is a trade I would still make today, and I'm not a fan of Rattie. For #11 overall, that was a horrible pick by the Avs. The 2011 draft wasn't the strongest. There were a few names that were appealing that we could have taken instead of Siemens at #11, but maybe only one or two of them would have contributed to our team the way that Shattenkirk and Stewart have/did. J.T. Miller or Rickard Rackell would have been my pick at #11.

#22 in 2013, along with Reto Berra and Mark Cundari, got us Jay Bouwmeester. Undoubtedly, J-Bo is more valuable than any of those pieces alone. Emile Poirier is an AHL-lifer, but had the Flames taken Burakovsky, Dano, or even McCarron or Klimchuk, I might feel a little worse about it. The worst part about this trade is it forced us to overcompensate in the second. We traded Bishop for #47 (Tommy Vannelli), and picks #83, #94, and #113 for pick #57 (William Carrier). Then later, we figured why not ball out, and traded our 7th rounder (#203) and 2014 #112 (which ended up being Viktor Arvidsson, perchance to dream) for Zach Pochiro. So, in a way, we traded a 7th and a 4th for #1 overall. I'd still rather have Arvidsson. Nevertheless, the 1st rounder here doesn't hurt that bad.

The 2015 one is the one that hurts the most. Giving up our 1stie on one of the best drafts in recent memory was brutal. It was like sitting out Christmas morning and watching all of your friends open the coolest presents ever. The pick we sent to Buffalo for the Miller experiment ended up in Winnipeg, who used that #25OA for Jack Roslovic. A big, right-handed centerman would be really nice right now. Even if we hadn't taken Roslovic there, there are a dozen names in the early 2nd that would be great to have at that spot as well, not to mention the potential to trade up a spot to nab Konecny. Yeah, this one sucks in retrospect. I still respect the move regardless; it took guts to try to hit the home run ball here, and we failed (brutally), but I respect the decision to swing for it. I know that's an unpopular position round these parts, but it's how I feel about it.

So, the point to all of this is that but for one pretty glaring exception, we didn't really miss out on anything of value with those 1st rounders we gave up. Bill Armstrong has kept us afloat despite of those losses, and we'll continue to rely on him to stock the pools in whatever circumstances. At least we didn't lose that other firstie in the Miller trade!

 

[STL fan in MN]

I'm completely fine with most of the 1sts the Blues have traded away recently (other than the one in the Miller trade) but I don't think it's fair to evaluate the value of the trade based on who the team we traded the pick to ultimately picked with those picks. Who's to say the Blues would've drafted the same player at that spot? Basic odds suggest that's incredibly unlikely. To me, the trade should stay based on the value of the pick. For example, Siemens is probably a touch lower value today than Rattie but an 11th overall pick always trumps a 32nd overall pick.

What if the 11th pick in 2011 was used on JT Miller instead of Siemens? Just because COL made bad use of the pick doesn't mean the pick became less valuable or that it somehow makes the trade better for the Blues. A pick is an opportunity to get a quality player. COL squandering the pick doesn't really change the intrinsic value of the 2011 11th overall pick.

Same with Poirer. Guys like Burakovsky, Hartman, Dano, etc. were available at that point in 2013 (I personally wanted Hartman in that range that year). The opportunity to draft a good player was there; CGY just squandered it.

And I'd say losing the 2015 1st doesn't necessarily hurt because our pick was ultimately used by another team to select a quality player (Roslovic), it hurt because trading it and other assets for Miller and Ott was a bad use of assets. WPG (they got the pick from BUF) simply made a good selection...and there were other quality players available at that point in the draft too. Again, doesn't change the intrinsic value of that particular pick.

 

[Brian39]

I'm completely fine with most of the 1sts the Blues have traded away recently (other than the one in the Miller trade) but I don't think it's fair to evaluate the value of the trade based on who the team we traded the pick to ultimately picked with those picks. Who's to say the Blues would've drafted the same player at that spot? Basic odds suggest that's incredibly unlikely. To me, the trade should stay based on the value of the pick. For example, Siemens is probably a touch lower value today than Rattie but an 11th overall pick always trumps a 32nd overall pick.

What if the 11th pick in 2011 was used on JT Miller instead of Siemens? Just because COL made bad use of the pick doesn't mean the pick became less valuable or that it somehow makes the trade better for the Blues. A pick is an opportunity to get a quality player. COL squandering the pick doesn't really change the intrinsic value of the 2011 11th overall pick.

Same with Poirer. Guys like Burakovsky, Hartman, Dano, etc. were available at that point in 2013 (I personally wanted Hartman in that range that year). The opportunity to draft a good player was there; CGY just squandered it.

And I'd say losing the 2015 1st doesn't necessarily hurt because our pick was ultimately used by another team to select a quality player (Roslovic), it hurt because trading it and other assets for Miller and Ott was a bad use of assets. WPG (they got the pick from BUF) simply made a good selection...and there were other quality players available at that point in the draft too. Again, doesn't change the intrinsic value of that particular pick.

I completely agree with this. With that said, I also don't have any heartburn over trading the 2011 and 2013 picks. There was quality left on the board, but not an overwhelming amount. Given the options available, I don't think the chances of drafting the right guy were exceedingly high and there was a decent chance of us botching the pick had we kept it. The jury is still out on 2015 but I tend to agree with you that there was a lot of quality left on the board by our pick and we probably would have made a decent pick. Maybe we are still overhyping prospects before they bust, but my gut tells me that 2015 is going to wind up with a strong showing from the late first/early second rounds.

Even though losing the pick in 2015 hurts, I still don't hate that Miller trade. It was a complete failure in hindsight, but I liked the gamble. I think the issue was much more with our goaltending coach than the trade itself. I still think Miller could have been successful in our system if we had just let him play his own game.

 

[nonzerochance]

Our other first rounders at 20+ have been Schmaltz, Fabbri, and Thompson. Schmaltz is about to make the NHL roster, Fabbri made it in his draft year, and Thompson looks promising. Sure, we could use more Tarasenkos at #16, but it's incorrect to say our 20+ first rounders have not or will not be successful.

Fabbri made the team in his draft+1 year. His draft year was the one where he went to the WJC and got injured. (Concussion, I think?)

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Fabbri made the team in his draft+1 year. His draft year was the one where he went to the WJC and got injured. (Concussion, I think?)

High MCL sprain, IIRC.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I'm completely fine with most of the 1sts the Blues have traded away recently (other than the one in the Miller trade) but I don't think it's fair to evaluate the value of the trade based on who the team we traded the pick to ultimately picked with those picks. Who's to say the Blues would've drafted the same player at that spot? Basic odds suggest that's incredibly unlikely. To me, the trade should stay based on the value of the pick. For example, Siemens is probably a touch lower value today than Rattie but an 11th overall pick always trumps a 32nd overall pick.

What if the 11th pick in 2011 was used on JT Miller instead of Siemens? Just because COL made bad use of the pick doesn't mean the pick became less valuable or that it somehow makes the trade better for the Blues. A pick is an opportunity to get a quality player. COL squandering the pick doesn't really change the intrinsic value of the 2011 11th overall pick.

Same with Poirer. Guys like Burakovsky, Hartman, Dano, etc. were available at that point in 2013 (I personally wanted Hartman in that range that year). The opportunity to draft a good player was there; CGY just squandered it.

And I'd say losing the 2015 1st doesn't necessarily hurt because our pick was ultimately used by another team to select a quality player (Roslovic), it hurt because trading it and other assets for Miller and Ott was a bad use of assets. WPG (they got the pick from BUF) simply made a good selection...and there were other quality players available at that point in the draft too. Again, doesn't change the intrinsic value of that particular pick.

I think if you re-read my post, you'd see that we're mostly on the same page. It's not that Siemens/Poirier didn't pan out, it's that the other potential picks that we *could* have gotten with those picks *also* wouldn't have helped us out much either. I specifically mentioned JT Miller, Burakovsky, and Dano in my post, so there's that. The point is, whoever we were likely to have drafted in those positions, they wouldn't have been more beneficial to us than the returns from trading those picks. Even in a bubble, I'd strongly consider trading #11 and #22 for two proven, high-quality defensemen ready to play right now. When you add to that the struggles we were having at the time on the blue line, it's a no-brainer, imo. The Miller trade didn't work out for a number of reasons, one of them being that the #25 pick that year was a very high-quality pick, regardless of whether or not the pick was actually Jack Roslovic. A 2015 #25 > 2017 #25, the players available are significant. To make sure the horse is good and dead, if the terms of the Miller trade were a 2017 1st rounder and not a 2015 one, I doubt people would be as upset at giving it up right now.

I completely agree with this. With that said, I also don't have any heartburn over trading the 2011 and 2013 picks. There was quality left on the board, but not an overwhelming amount. Given the options available, I don't think the chances of drafting the right guy were exceedingly high and there was a decent chance of us botching the pick had we kept it. The jury is still out on 2015 but I tend to agree with you that there was a lot of quality left on the board by our pick and we probably would have made a decent pick. Maybe we are still overhyping prospects before they bust, but my gut tells me that 2015 is going to wind up with a strong showing from the late first/early second rounds.

Even though losing the pick in 2015 hurts, I still don't hate that Miller trade. It was a complete failure in hindsight, but I liked the gamble. I think the issue was much more with our goaltending coach than the trade itself. I still think Miller could have been successful in our system if we had just let him play his own game.

+1, agreed 100%. It's funny though how you agreed with IA and I didn't, but I agree with you

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I agree with Morty, but disagree with Brian, and agree with IA, but also disagree with me.

Seriously, though. I don't think we're anywhere near a state of panic for having a barren prospect cupboard. STL doesn't get ANY hype for ANY of our players, ever. Tarasenko, Schwartz, and even Pietrangelo didn't have a whole lot of hype once they were drafted by the Blues. Even Parayko is having a hard time being taken seriously around here while every Canadian prospect outside of Vancouver is over-hyped consistently. I think since we are a relatively level-headed board, we don't have any counter-hyperbole to get us too excited about our guys.

Our prospects are consistently better than what we, very cautious and conservative Blues fans, project them to be. We're still pumping the brakes on Parayko - and we're constantly being surprised by the rise of players like Blais, Kyrou, Dunn, Walman, Schmaltz, etc. No one else talks about these prospects because they're not top 10 picks, and they're in STL's system.

Our future is just fine, whether or not we trade Shattenkirk. We desperately need to snag a top 6 center, but it's doubtful Shattenkirk plays a direct role in acquiring that player. Otherwise, we have a great pool of potential top 4 dmen, and have a lot of (perhaps longshot) middle 6 potential forwards. We've just got to get a youngish top 6 center.

I'm tired of failing to hit when the "rarest of rare" top 6 center becomes available. Sure, Johansen doesn't seem like we've missed out on much, but there have been lots of other top 6 centers that have been moved to nearly everywhere except STL. We've got to execute and land our guy, and/or Stastny has to show that he can be/be one of those guys.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I think if you re-read my post, you'd see that we're mostly on the same page. It's not that Siemens/Poirier didn't pan out, it's that the other potential picks that we *could* have gotten with those picks *also* wouldn't have helped us out much either. I specifically mentioned JT Miller, Burakovsky, and Dano in my post, so there's that. The point is, whoever we were likely to have drafted in those positions, they wouldn't have been more beneficial to us than the returns from trading those picks. Even in a bubble, I'd strongly consider trading #11 and #22 for two proven, high-quality defensemen ready to play right now. When you add to that the struggles we were having at the time on the blue line, it's a no-brainer, imo. The Miller trade didn't work out for a number of reasons, one of them being that the #25 pick that year was a very high-quality pick, regardless of whether or not the pick was actually Jack Roslovic. A 2015 #25 > 2017 #25, the players available are significant. To make sure the horse is good and dead, if the terms of the Miller trade were a 2017 1st rounder and not a 2015 one, I doubt people would be as upset at giving it up right now.



+1, agreed 100%. It's funny though how you agreed with IA and I didn't, but I agree with you

Yeah, I read your post and know you mentioned those guys.

I suppose my disagreement with what you wrote can be explained a lot by these two passages:

had the Flames taken Burakovsky, Dano, or even McCarron or Klimchuk, I might feel a little worse about it.

we didn't really miss out on anything of value with those 1st rounders.

I would say that I'd feel the same regardless of which player was taken with the Blues original pick. What matters to me is which players were available at that point/which players were expected to be available in that general range at the time of the trade. There's an opportunity cost when trading away picks. And while I'm fine with the Bouw trade and EJ/Shatty blockbuster, I don't like either trade better or worse based on the players COL and CGY took respectively. I value picks based on their opportunity value, not which player is ultimately selected with that pick is all.

And agreed on Brian39's point about each draft having differing levels of depth and thus the picks not having the same worth year to year. The shallowness of the 2011 and 2013 drafts made trading away those picks a little easier and is partially why I am fine with the two trades - the opportunity value wasn't great in those two drafts so the picks weren't worth as much as they would've been in a deep draft...but they still had value.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

The list of missed:

(potential or current top 6 centers when traded or reportedly dangled) *jury is still out
Draisaitl, Zibanejad, Turris, Spezza, Seguin, Duchene*, Johansen, Giroux*, Staal, Carter, Thornton, Galchenyuk, Anisimov, O'Reilly, and Brassard

 

[Brian39]

I agree with Morty, but disagree with Brian, and agree with IA, but also disagree with me.

Our future is just fine, whether or not we trade Shattenkirk. We desperately need to snag a top 6 center, but it's doubtful Shattenkirk plays a direct role in acquiring that player. Otherwise, we have a great pool of potential top 4 dmen, and have a lot of (perhaps longshot) middle 6 potential forwards. We've just got to get a youngish top 6 center.

I'm tired of failing to hit when the "rarest of rare" top 6 center becomes available. Sure, Johansen doesn't seem like we've missed out on much, but there have been lots of other top 6 centers that have been moved to nearly everywhere except STL. We've got to execute and land our guy, and/or Stastny has to show that he can be/be one of those guys.

I think we have pretty similar outlooks about the Blues. I agree that it is unlikely that Shatty gets us a top 6 center directly. However, I do think trading Shatty would provide assets which could be flipped in a package for a top 6 center (or make some of our existing assets more expendable).

 

[Brian39]

The list of missed:

(potential or current top 6 centers when traded or reportedly dangled) *jury is still out
Draisaitl, Zibanejad, Turris, Spezza, Seguin, Duchene*, Johansen, Giroux*, Staal, Carter, Thornton, Galchenyuk, Anisimov, O'Reilly, and Brassard

To be fair, I've heard a number of rumors that Spezza wouldn't waive his NTC for us, I still think Anisimov is a 2C/3C tweener away from Kane, The Avs probably had no interest trading O'Reilly in-division, and Zibanejad/Brassard were traded for each other.

I'd add an asterisk to Galchenyuk as well, because I don't think Montreal is sold on him yet. It is so freaking hard to get a legit 1C/2C tweener outside of the draft.