How do we know if the the Blues ever had a choice between Vrana and Sanford? Now before I get accused of building a "straw man", I do understand that no one has stated this. If Blues fans are asked to compare Vrana and Sanford, Vrana obviously wins. This in turn begs the question of which player Blues fans would rather have. Again, obviously Vrana. So, being that both players are/were Capitals prospects and the return for TJ Oshie was Sanford +, Blues fans ask themselves why they didn't get Vrana, or at least why we didn't ask for him. The argument is in the inference. (I'm not sure if I am expressing myself correctly here, so I appreciate your patience). I just think this leads to an unfair and biased evaluation of Curtis Sanford, especially when he is compared to Vrana, "the guy we could have had", who may in fact have never been involved in trade discussions.
We don't know if they had a choice, or if the Blues even asked about Vrana. What we know is
what we've been told.
At the trade deadline, Armstrong's goal was to get a first-round pick plus a young, cost-controlled player. His scouting staff identified Sanford as one of the Capitals prospects to pursue.
"They see a lot of Tage Thompson in him, a player we took in the first round, a big body, a point a game player as a sophomore at Boston College . . . on a very good team in college," Armstrong said during a Tuesday morning press conference.
At 6-foot-4, he could offer appealing size at center, a position of acute need for the Blues. Or he could end up on the wing. A second-round pick in 2013, Sanford played two years at Boston College before turning pro this season.
"I see a big player that is multi-positional," Armstrong said. "We're hoping to see him as a centerman, a player that can produce offense . . . If a 6-4 Zach and a 6-4, 6-5 Tage Thompson down the middle for a few years wouldn't hurt my feelings."
The first adjective that comes to Armstrong's mind when describing Sanford, twice, is that he's big. We know the organization values size, and we also know that the Blues valued Thompson (Armstrong's comp for Sanford, and one that received similar descriptions post-draft) over a smaller, speedier, skilled guy in Kyrou.
It's really not much of a leap from there to think that the Blues might have preferred Sanford to Vrana as well, since Vrana was similar to Kyrou in a number of ways when drafted. Both are mobile, slightly undersized, skill guys who project as wingers. Both are good play-makers that need to use others better since they have a tendency to over-handle the puck. Both need to work on their games away from the puck. There are some differences, like Vrana is the more willing shooter while Kryou is the more dangerous skater, but there are definitely similarities there. It's inferential, but the inferences are pretty strong.
The Blues have their reasons, and they aren't without merit. Size isn't completely irrelevant. Positional flexibility is valuable. If he has potential at center, that's an area of need. He was further along in his development than anyone else the Blues could have likely landed from Washington. He has a higher floor than Vrana. There are legitimate things there to like. I also agree that Sanford should be judged on his own merits at this point.
That said, this is a discussion that's still worth having in the sense that it's a discussion about this organization's decision making values and trends. Even if we can't change those things as fans, it's still beneficial to try to identify and understand them so we have a better idea of what's happening, and why. That, in turn, leads to better informed opinions, and ultimately better discussions, which is why many of us are here to begin with.
