Beefing up Def

[Spektre]

I'm looking forward to hockey season but I always do. The Blues will have a good team and will make the playoffs barring something really odd.

I just would like to see them beef up the D. Come playoff time our D gets pushed around too much. I won't say they're soft but we don't have that physical presence.

I'm sure this trade won't happen but would it make sense to trade Shattenkirk, maybe Sobotka and more for Phaneuf?

Soby wants out of StL. We have Shatty for 3 more years at 4.25/yr. Phaneuf makes 7/yr for the next 7 years. I would be inclined to think Shatty is in for a raise after those 3 years are up.

Thoughts? Is there another D that makes more sense to beef up the blue line?

Click to read more...

 

[Note Worthy]

I don't think we can trade Sobotka until/if he comes back to the NHL. Maybe I'm wrong there...? Even so who's going to want his rights if he's not guaranteed to come back to the NHL?

I don't think we should trade Shattenkirk. I would like to try a season or two of talent instead of size. We've done size before; didn't work. I want to see what talent does.

 

[Dbrownss]

The feeling that I got from the Blues trainer during a Q&A was that his training doesn't pack on muscle right away. He "builds" the players frame up first then after 3-4 yrs (can't remember), that's when they focus on getting bigger. I think over the next few years we will see pie and Shatty get much stronger to address this problem internally.

 

[medkit]

Phaneuf is listed as 7 pounds heavier than Shattenkirk..

I would rather have Shatty than Phaneuf straight up. Phaneuf has a 7m per year caphit until he's 36... Shatty is on an affordable deal, improves every season, and IMO is already a better player too. His prime is going to be fun to watch.

 

[Alklha]

Armstrong is committed to the fact that our transition game is the problem, which makes you wonder what he was thinking when having to watch Hitch pair Jackman and Polák. But Armstrong could certainly be right, despite a lot of fans desperation for some more physicality.

Anyway, we don't have the cap space to take on nearly $3m. Also, why does Toronto consider moving Phaneuf for Shattenkirk when they have Gardiner and Rielly?

And yes, unless he regresses, Shattenkirk will be due a significant raise in his next contract. With how the cap will be at that point, he'd easily get $6m on the open market.

 

[anlongo13]

I don't think we can trade Sobotka until/if he comes back to the NHL. Maybe I'm wrong there...? Even so who's going to want his rights if he's not guaranteed to come back to the NHL?

I don't think we should trade Shattenkirk. I would like to try a season or two of talent instead of size. We've done size before; didn't work. I want to see what talent does.

If I read it correctly, he owes a year under his contract's original terms. But I do believe the Blues have the ability to trade his rights. I could be wrong though, don't quote me on it.

Also, I agree about Shattenkirk. No reason to trade him. He is on a decent contract, and Blues just traded to get a guy to pair with him. Not really seeing the reason to get rid of one of our Olympians after one rough playoff series.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

There have been enough quotes from Hitch and Armstrong to make it clear the decision-makers don't think physicality is a deficit. They're banking on good/quick transition. Acquiring Shattenkirk, Bouwmeester and now Gunnarson, the actions match the rhetoric. In other words, whatever we discuss in this thread I think the D is set and it's built exactly how they're envisioning it.

I'd rather have Shattenkirk straight up over Phaneuf. I see no way to fit Dions contract without having to part with another roster player, and in think doing that would probably make the move a net negative for the team.

 

[Stopsight]

whatever physicality we are missing on the back end is more than made up for by our forwards. I also don't recall ever seeing our defensemen getting out muscled for the puck, they take some hits but they aren't putting themselves in a position to lose the puck due to that.

 

[EastonBlues22]

There have been enough quotes from Hitch and Armstrong to make it clear the decision-makers don't think physicality is a deficit. They're banking on good/quick transition. Acquiring Shattenkirk, Bouwmeester and now Gunnarson, the actions match the rhetoric. In other words, whatever we discuss in this thread I think the D is set and it's built exactly how they're envisioning it.

I'd rather have Shattenkirk straight up over Phaneuf. I see no way to fit Dions contract without having to part with another roster player, and in think doing that would probably make the move a net negative for the team.

I agree with this, and I also agree with management that physicality on the back end should be taking a back seat to mobility and puck skills in today's NHL. As long as a defenseman is sound positionally and is big/strong enough to keep from getting flat-out manhandled, he should be able to do all he needs to do in the defensive zone. The day of the "punishing" defenseman archetype is coming to a close.

 

[BluesTraveller]

I agree with this, and I also agree with management that physicality on the back end should be taking a back seat to mobility and puck skills in today's NHL. As long as a defenseman is sound positionally and is big/strong enough to keep from getting flat-out manhandled, he should be able to do all he needs to do in the defensive zone. The day of the "punishing" defenseman archetype is coming to a close.

Couldn't have said it better myself. This isn't the 80s

 

[Multimoodia]

Plus, Hitchcock would shoot Phaneuf on the spot after some of his mental gaffes.
He makes Colociacovo look as though he is a savant of the game. People complain about some of Shattenkirk's decisions during the playoffs...oyvey.

 

[BlueOil]

Let's keep Poorly Positioned Phanuef off our roster.

Seriously, if it's not from missing on a big hit or just flat out being caught high in the slot in his own zone, he's not often in the appropriate position.

He plays the game like its an EA video game.

 

[BlueDream]

If I read it correctly, he owes a year under his contract's original terms. But I do believe the Blues have the ability to trade his rights. I could be wrong though, don't quote me on it.

Also, I agree about Shattenkirk. No reason to trade him. He is on a decent contract, and Blues just traded to get a guy to pair with him. Not really seeing the reason to get rid of one of our Olympians after one rough playoff series.

Lol it wasn't a rough playoff series at all. Shattenkirk posted very good numbers against Chicago and one bad sequence against Patrick Kane makes people think he was awful. It's mind boggling.

The Blues team this season will be an interesting combination. We may have the most skilled, puck-moving 'D' in the league. And our forwards are a nice blend of skill and heaviness. It's a good roster. If we do need a physical d-man though, perhaps that can be our deadline acquisition (that or a 3rd line winger if some of our question marks don't pan out).

 

[BA Carroll]

The West Coast teams owned us last year. They've had great success against us for several years. The common factor between them is that they employ a heavy forecheck to pummel our skilled defenders, and use stretch passes to avoid back-checking forwards. It's not rocket science. If you watched those games, you cannot have missed this.

Chicago looked at the teams that had success against the Blues. They viewed the tapes of the Blues against the Kings, Ducks and Sharks. They learned that the Blues' transition game is overly reliant on Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk. They learned that those two can be knocked off their game by a heavy forecheck. They learned that Jackman, Cole and Polak are prone to panic against breakaways and make mistakes on when to pinch. They formulated their game plan accordingly.

Bickell's sole mission against the Blues was to punish Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk at every opportunity. He single-handedly neutralized our transition game, and left our two best defensemen playing timid. That in turn forced our forwards to work even harder on the back check to compensate. That effectively shut down our offense.

I like Petro and Shatts. They're incredibly talented players. And Gunnarson, if healthy, is a legit upgrade over Polak. But the entire Western Conference now has our number. If our defense is going to continue to wilt in the face of physical adversity, it's foolish to expect that next season will end any different than the last.

 

[Dbrownss]

So what good will adding a goon do when petro is getting punished and the goon is on the bench?

Imo we use one of reaves or Ott to remove Bickell(example) as a threat by either getting him into a fight or just punish him. Replacing a skilled Dman with a big mean Dman who can't pass the puck isn't going to solve the problem.

I'm a believer in eye for an eye. You play our Stars hard, we play yours even harder.

 

[thigpen]

The West Coast teams owned us last year. They've had great success against us for several years. The common factor between them is that they employ a heavy forecheck to pummel our skilled defenders, and use stretch passes to avoid back-checking forwards. It's not rocket science. If you watched those games, you cannot have missed this.

Chicago looked at the teams that had success against the Blues. They viewed the tapes of the Blues against the Kings, Ducks and Sharks. They learned that the Blues' transition game is overly reliant on Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk. They learned that those two can be knocked off their game by a heavy forecheck. They learned that Jackman, Cole and Polak are prone to panic against breakaways and make mistakes on when to pinch. They formulated their game plan accordingly.

Bickell's sole mission against the Blues was to punish Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk at every opportunity. He single-handedly neutralized our transition game, and left our two best defensemen playing timid. That in turn forced our forwards to work even harder on the back check to compensate. That effectively shut down our offense.

I like Petro and Shatts. They're incredibly talented players. And Gunnarson, if healthy, is a legit upgrade over Polak. But the entire Western Conference now has our number. If our defense is going to continue to wilt in the face of physical adversity, it's foolish to expect that next season will end any different than the last.

If "our defense is... wilt(ing) in the face of physical adversity", then it's incumbent upon the coaching staff to formulate a strategic adaptation. If our D don't know how to handle a strong forecheck, they'd better damn well learn how to move the puck quicker to the backchecking forwards, and the forwards better get in position to receive the pass. This stuff is pounded into our boys regularly and, yes, under the intensity of big games they have occasionally crumbled.

This is a mental toughness issue for the guys who are skilled and a skill-deficit issue for the others. Our D is no less capable than Chicago's or any other team and there should be no excuses for these guys (as a whole). I fully expect Petro and Shatty to improve in the mental toughness arena, which may develop in conjunction with the strength training. As for guys like Bickell, he should have been pounded by one of our tough guys, but we were too scared about giving up the PP to respond (and that's on Hitch). I get being disciplined but not neutralizing Bickell's crapola was unacceptable.

 

[BA Carroll]

If "our defense is... wilt(ing) in the face of physical adversity", then it's incumbent upon the coaching staff to formulate a strategic adaptation. If our D don't know how to handle a strong forecheck, they'd better damn well learn how to move the puck quicker to the backchecking forwards, and the forwards better get in position to receive the pass. This stuff is pounded into our boys regularly and, yes, under the intensity of big games they have occasionally crumbled.

This is a mental toughness issue for the guys who are skilled and a skill-deficit issue for the others. Our D is no less capable than Chicago's or any other team and there should be no excuses for these guys (as a whole). I fully expect Petro and Shatty to improve in the mental toughness arena, which may develop in conjunction with the strength training. As for guys like Bickell, he should have been pounded by one of our tough guys, but we were too scared about giving up the PP to respond (and that's on Hitch). I get being disciplined but not neutralizing Bickell's crapola was unacceptable.

I agree. But for all the talk about Hitch needing to evolve his strategy, he hasn't shown a knack for doing that on the fly. The square peg in the round hole powerplay we saw in the playoffs is proof of that. Assuming Army isn't going to fire Hitch for being a stubborn old coot, if I'm Blues management and I make the observations I previously detailed (and I readily admit that, so far, it appears they disagree with my assessment, at least publicly), then I'm going to look to see what I can do with player personnel to address the issue.

I wouldn't move Shatty for the sake of moving him. He's a consistent performer who is young, continues to improve, and is on a reasonable contract. But if his physical limitations make him a liability in spite of his prowess, I would have to consider flipping him for a more durable player, preferably one with comparable skills, or whose abilities compensate for Shatty's loss.

I've argued here and elsewhere that the ideal player for that purpose is Byfuglien. He's not the greatest defender, but his offensive skill is undeniable, and the ability to play him on the wing or on defense, and count on his production, makes him a tremendous asset. Unfortunately, I think he will be dealt to one of our rivals.

If we don't make such a move, this will be a big year for Reaves. He's never been bad, but he's never been the player we know he can be. He needs to prove himself relevant and ready, or he'll be out of a job.

 

[medkit]

Lol it wasn't a rough playoff series at all. Shattenkirk posted very good numbers against Chicago and one bad sequence against Patrick Kane makes people think he was awful. It's mind boggling.

THANK YOU... I get so annoyed when people say that. That's the type of throwing-under-the-bus I would expect in a Canadian city, not here. Kane made the guy look bad on one fast break in OT and people say he sucked in the whole series. He was great. 5 points in 6 games on defense.. led the team. #4 in TOI. It's hard to be that offensive and still watch the constant stretch passes to Sharp and yet Sharp only got one point all series. The guy played 35 strong minutes in game 1 against possibly the best offense in the league! And pretty much won us game 2. This is still a team that leans a lot on our trio of elite defenders and I hope Shattenkirk stays a Blue for a long, long time.

 

[thigpen]

I agree. But for all the talk about Hitch needing to evolve his strategy, he hasn't shown a knack for doing that on the fly. The square peg in the round hole powerplay we saw in the playoffs is proof of that. Assuming Army isn't going to fire Hitch for being a stubborn old coot, if I'm Blues management and I make the observations I previously detailed (and I readily admit that, so far, it appears they disagree with my assessment, at least publicly), then I'm going to look to see what I can do with player personnel to address the issue.

I wouldn't move Shatty for the sake of moving him. He's a consistent performer who is young, continues to improve, and is on a reasonable contract. But if his physical limitations make him a liability in spite of his prowess, I would have to consider flipping him for a more durable player, preferably one with comparable skills, or whose abilities compensate for Shatty's loss.

I've argued here and elsewhere that the ideal player for that purpose is Byfuglien. He's not the greatest defender, but his offensive skill is undeniable, and the ability to play him on the wing or on defense, and count on his production, makes him a tremendous asset. Unfortunately, I think he will be dealt to one of our rivals.

If we don't make such a move, this will be a big year for Reaves. He's never been bad, but he's never been the player we know he can be. He needs to prove himself relevant and ready, or he'll be out of a job.

I would love to have Buff in Shatty's place too, but I have to wonder if Wpeg would trade him to a division rival. It would probably also involve a significant pick or prospect going back to get them to bite, which would be a tricky deal for Army.

Until that improbable day, there has to be a systematic solution to the heavy forecheck and sneaky stretch pass. One could argue that even the stingiest D will suffer the odd breakdown and that other elements of the team game need to compensate. Better goal-tending or more scoring, for example. Army has certainly attempted to address those needs with the off-season upgrades (though Goal is a bit of a question mark). Having better all-around center icemen than before should help a lot, both on offense and defense.

If those centers and the rest of the team buy in to the 200 ft game, the marginal deficiencies on defense should, hopefully, be mitigated.

 

[medkit]

But if his physical limitations make him a liability in spite of his prowess, I would have to consider flipping him for a more durable player, preferably one with comparable skills, or whose abilities compensate for Shatty's loss.

I don't get these arguments. Shattenkirk has missed 2 games total over the last 3 seasons. Missed 0 during the lockout while playing heavy minutes every night. He's played every playoff game. You don't think he's durable?

And why is he the target for a heavier defense when he is already bigger than Jackman, who many of you seem to think is super tough? He'll probably be even bigger once he weighs in this season too, because when you're lifting at 25 you can really pack on muscle quick. On weight he's also bigger than Gunnarson and Pietrangelo (and tons of guys around the league like Keith). If you really want to move a 2nd pairing guy for size move his partner.

 

[thigpen]

I don't get these arguments. Shattenkirk has missed 2 games total over the last 3 seasons. Missed 0 during the lockout while playing heavy minutes every night. He's played every playoff game. You don't think he's durable?

And why is he the target for a heavier defense when he is already bigger than Jackman, who many of you seem to think is super tough? He'll probably be even bigger once he weighs in this season too, because when you're lifting at 25 you can really pack on muscle quick. On weight he's also bigger than Gunnarson and Pietrangelo (and tons of guys around the league like Keith). If you really want to move a 2nd pairing guy for size move his partner.

I don't know about BA Carroll but my only issues with Shatty are his size and occasional over-pinches. He just isn't big enough to use reach (with his stick) as a defensive weapon and smart enough to know when not to pinch. I'm not saying I don't appreciate his strengths, but I would take Byfuglien over Shatty (even though USA Olympic Hockey didn't) if I had the option.

I would like to see how Shatty pairs with Gunnarsson before I call for another upgrade (be it LD or RD) on that 2nd pairing, but I would not be at all surprised if the pairing is targeted for exploitation by opponents. As I mentioned previously however, I do think the off-season upgrades at center ice will help alleviate some potential defensive breakdowns.

 

[BA Carroll]

I don't get these arguments. Shattenkirk has missed 2 games total over the last 3 seasons. Missed 0 during the lockout while playing heavy minutes every night. He's played every playoff game. You don't think he's durable?

And why is he the target for a heavier defense when he is already bigger than Jackman, who many of you seem to think is super tough? He'll probably be even bigger once he weighs in this season too, because when you're lifting at 25 you can really pack on muscle quick. On weight he's also bigger than Gunnarson and Pietrangelo (and tons of guys around the league like Keith). If you really want to move a 2nd pairing guy for size move his partner.

"Durable" isn't the right word. The fact is, he gets targeted and intimidated by a heavy forecheck. You're free to disagree, but it's been a glaring problem since he's been here--especially in big games--which was a big reason we brought in J-Bo, but that wasn't enough. This is also a weakness in Petro's game, and to some extent, as you rightly point out, Jackman's.

So why am I singling out Shatty?
That's simple. They won't move Petro, and none of the others would bring a decent enough return, or open sufficient salary cap space, to address the need without creating another hole.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

I would rather see an Adam McQuaid type than a Dion Phaneuf. I'm being completely honest in saying that he may be the worst defenseman that I saw last year.

 

[Dbrownss]

I was pretty high on McQuaid till I learned about his Concussion history.