Confirmed with Link: Berglund signs 5 year $19.25M extension

[BlueOil]

A chance, just like there's a chance that it's a worthwhile investment. The Blues have faith in him, there's no free agents they can get to fill the void of his production for less, and promoting from within to fill that gap is too risky.

A chance? It's likely this contract will not be a worthwhile investment.

Berglund is a 0.47ppg player who has been averaging 27pts for the past 5 seasons and is currently on pace for 33pts. (IF he makes it) he's going to be a 20 goal scorer who barely breaks 30pts for the season. If you need a sign his current production is replaceable, this is one. He's not providing enough offense now to justify his $3.7m contract, he's not going to score enough to justify a raise either as history is currently repeating itself.

Berglund is reliable defensively and can play wing, bringing some utility. He's also got height and size, but doesn't use it reliably. Good possession metrics and playoffs also help. He doesn't reliably have chemistry with anyone, but is well liked by teammates and fans. He's a complimentary role player. Someone who can and should be replaced internally with cheaper or younger talent so the money can be used to keep/get high end players.

Instead we resign him for 5 years at a rather high salary for 3rd liner who doesn't typically score when we have at least two internal options available to replace him and could use the cap elsewhere to fill an actual team need to improve ourselves.

The only chance this has to be a good deal is for Berglund to become the late blossoming Swede. If he continues as he has for the past 5 years and 60 games, this will just be poor cap management.

 

[HolyJumpin]

I like Berglund, I think we could and should've gotten him for cheaper.

This extension reeks like every other Armstrong extension that comes to mind:

Steen, Bouwmeester, Lehtera, Allen

In each of these Armstrong is paying too much for players that aren't worth as much/or will be useful as long as their contracts are.

 

[EastonBlues22]

It's the end of the world as we know it. The Berglund hate on this forum is just un-****ing believable.

You do realize that not liking the signing is not necessarily the same thing as "hating" on Berglund, right?

I don't want to speak for anyone else who doesn't like this signing, but I happen to like Berglund quite a bit. I liked him back when most people here actively detested him because he fell well short of their 2nd line expectations. Under different circumstances I'd love to see him stick around...but we don't have different circumstances. We're stuck with things being the way they are.

 

[simon IC]

You do realize that not liking the signing is not necessarily the same thing as "hating" on Berglund, right?

I don't want to speak for anyone else who doesn't like this signing, but I happen to like Berglund quite a bit. I liked him back when most people here actively detested him because he fell well short of their 2nd line expectations. Under different circumstances I'd love to see him stick around...but we don't have different circumstances. We're stuck with things being the way they are.

You are quite right, and apologize for my rather shallow and, um, hasty, post. I have always been a big Berglund fan, and have always been annoyed that he has often been the forum's whipping boy. I was elated when I heard he was re-signed, and I just reacted emotionally to the flood of negativity on this thread. You're evaluation of the signing is very coherent and well thought out.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I'm siding with Easton, here. Unless we can make multiple other moves, this Berglund contract is not a good one. Bringing Berglund back should have only happened if we got a good contract for him (3.5M/3yrs). Since that contract was likely not available, he should have been left to test FA or at the very least traded at the deadline. This was the wrong move for where we are at as a franchise, and a failure to retool as DA claimed this year would be.

We currently have four 3Cs for next year available: Berglund, Barbashev, Lehtera, and Sobotka. Unless we trade Berglund/Lehtera and Barbashev/Sobotka, we not only don't have room for our players and their development, but we are in danger of not being able to sign Parayko, and are unable to address REAL team needs like 1C, 2RW, and potentially 1G.

This was the wrong time, wrong term, wrong AAV, and wrong position (3C). Even if Berglund exceeds our expectations and becomes an Elite 3C with some offense, this is still a bad deal considering team need at this point in time.

 

[Em etah Eh]

I like Berglund, I think we could and should've gotten him for cheaper.

This extension reeks like every other Armstrong extension that comes to mind:

Steen, Bouwmeester, Lehtera, Allen

In each of these Armstrong is paying too much for players that aren't worth as much/or will be useful as long as their contracts are.

Steen deal - too early to tell, he's still putting up pts, hard to let a guy like Steen walk, 4 more years is ok with me.
Jaybo - this is revisionist theory going on here. Was anybody ripping on this trade and signing when they occurred? It's easy to criticize the deal, in hindsight, now that Jaybo's offense is dried up, but he's still serviceable on the top pair. This board had been wanting a top LHD for a long while and I think Army did a fine job in filling it for what was paid.

I'll agree with you on the other two as there was not enough reward to sign them a year early.

 

[Frenzy31]

What sort of question is that? If Plekanec (on pace for 31 points) is sucking things up for Montreal at $6 million, does that mean that the Blues should sign Berglund (on pace for 33 points) at $4 million because he's an absolute steal in comparison? With that sort of rationalization, you could justify almost any contract simply by comparing it to the worst contracts in the league.


This doesn't make any sense, either. You ignore ELCs when discussing UFA contracts precisely to prevent UFAs from looking artificially overpaid in comparison. It's allows you to have an apples-to-apples conversation on something like this. It's definitely not "manipulating stats," whatever that means.

I don't even know what you're talking about with regards to "none of the listed UFAs are centers," or what your point is with regards to playing on different lines on different teams.


I guess for this argument to carry any weight we're just going to pencil in Berglund as our #2 goal scorer moving forward? You can, but I'm not. He's been a 30 point forward since the lockout, post shoulder surgery included. He's on pace for 33 points this year. I think a better question is how many teams end up happy paying their 30 point forwards Berglund money on long contracts?


I don't think you've been paying attention to my concerns at all. Who cares what other fans/teams would be happy with? All I'm concerned with is how this affects the Blues moving forward. There's a whole lot of teams that would be happy to sign Shattenkirk to a 7 year deal at $6 million per. Doesn't mean the Blues should do it (even though Shattenkirk is obviously a good player who fills some key roles), for the same reasons that they shouldn't have signed Berglund to this deal...they can get by perfectly adequately without and those resources are needed to address other bigger problems elsewhere.

Perhaps those problems can be properly addressed if we let Shattenkirk/Berglund go, and perhaps they can't. We can be sure, however, that retaining Shattenkirk/Berglund just makes addressing those needs that much harder in the future regardless of what else those players bring to the organization.

Easton, the contract is fair. It is slightly below market value, see what was given out last year during UFA.

Further, Beyond Fischer and PM, both of whom will stay with their respective teams, there is nothing on the UFA market as far a centers go.

I fully expect the Jori Lehtera will be taken at the expansion draft. May be one of the better centers exposed.

I understand that you feel we could have gone a cheaper route, but I don't agree with you.

He would have cost us more if he got to UFA, because some team would have added him.

 

[Stealth JD]

Bergy's contract doesn't hinder the Blues ability to acquire a top-6 center anymore than paying Yakupov $2.5M to be a water-boy does, or paying Gunnarsson $2.9M to be a rotational d-man, or paying Chef-Pay-R-V to be a $1M AHLer, and so on and so forth. So the Blues will only have $6M to find a top-6 center...so what. We're likely not finding one of those in free agency, and if we were to acquire one via a trade, some team is likely going to want significant NHL-talent ($$$) in return. And hypothetically let's say Tavares hits the market next year and we need to find $9.5M annually to sign him. Are we really going to go "damn...we're out. Stupid Berglund/Lehtera contracts"...or are we going to move a guy for cap-space like we did Oshie? I'm thinking the Blues aren't in any danger of missing out on this forth-coming godsend at center.

It would be like some poor schmuck not wanting to marry his long-time sweetheart, because there's a chance he might somehow land a poker-playing surgeon who moonlights as a runway model and has an oral fixation. If you can finally find a way to land that top-line center, you'll do it. Otherwise, keep the team strong elsewhere in the meantime and simply give yourself flexibility to make changes later.

 

[Renard]

I don't like Bergy as a player, although I admit that he has been more physical and better on faceoffs than he was in the past.

Do we really need a big, slow third line center for the next five years? A guy who disappears from the scoring sheet for months at a time?

Well, he's here and I'm stuck with it for the next five years. Unless this is a "sign and trade" situation, which was the rumor the last time he signed a contract with the Blues.

 

[Evocable Manager]

I hate this signing. I like Berglund, but I would've much rather we move him for futures or let him walk before we did this.

Stealth this contract may not hinder us anymore than what we pay Yakupov and Gunnarsson. But it adds to said hindering and has more than double the term of both the listed players contracts. Saying we already overpay for bottom tier talent is not a good reason to overpay for more 3rd line talent.

As for the "replacement" argument. We have Barbashev. A rookie? Yes, but he's proven that he is capable in the NHL. Sobotka also may come back. He may be a head case but he's a good player and not far off from Berglund.

I don't see any reason for this contract. We're loaded on LW and have 3rd line center options for a cheaper price.

 

[Celtic Note]

You are quite right, and apologize for my rather shallow and, um, hasty, post. I have always been a big Berglund fan, and have always been annoyed that he has often been the forum's whipping boy. I was elated when I heard he was re-signed, and I just reacted emotionally to the flood of negativity on this thread. You're evaluation of the signing is very coherent and well thought out.

I think there was some hate previously. But, I don't think it was widespread. I can only speak to my feelings, but there was frustration on my end with where Berglund fit seasons ago. That stemmed from the construction of the team, not from Berglund as a player. As the construction of the team changed, his fit changed. He is a player that fits. Unfortunately, Armstrong has decided to collect a mishmash of pieces. He has neglected to fill the critical areas of the team. Now Berglund is a roadblock to resolving a critical issue, despite being a good fit. But, we have this collection of players that don't fit our holes. This signing doesn't help that.

 

[Majorityof1]

It's the end of the world as we know it. The Berglund hate on this forum is just un-****ing believable.

How is it hate to say he is overpaid? Many of us are big fans of Ryan Reaves. But if he was signed for $2.6M/year, we would all groan and complain. These type of contracts lead to hate, because we are frustrated we aren't getting what we paid for and that is hurting the team two-fold in a cap world. That has been a big part of the Berglund hate the past several years. He has never lived up to his $3.7M contract. S now we give him a raise?!?! How is that good management.

Most of the posts here are knocking the raise, not the player himself. He is what he is and there is value in that, just not nearly $4M/year worth. We have similar (maybe not as good but close) and far cheaper options available. Plus we have needs where that money could be put to much more pressing use. So that all compounds the issue.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Some thoughts on this:

1) Wonder what Mike Yeo's opinion and expected usage is for Berglund? He must see an important role there.

2) Could there be any chance of a sign and trade? (I highly doubt it, but its not impossible.)

3) More likely, I won't be surprised to learn that Armstrong has some deal in place to be executed later in which Lehtera is going. If he is negative value, fine, but the Blues can still use him as salary and add other value in a deal that is mutually beneficial for both teams. Maybe there is already something agreed to that is pending. I think a lot of deadline deals work this way. Another version of this would be that Stillman has already given the green light on a potential buy-out if necessary.

4) Signing Berglund when he did, the rest of the salary cap for next year becomes increasingly clear for other negotiations (and potential trades).

5) The team must have an impression that Berglund is going to perform at a higher level post-surgery in a sustained fashion. They see him in practice and a lot more situations than the games themselves that we see. Perhaps this signing is telling us that they see a significantly different player than prior to the shoulder surgery. If he became a 50 point player, I think less people would poo poo this signing.

I understand the criticisms. I agree the term is longer than I would ideally want. But I also think the negative ramifications are completely exaggerated in some comments here. The real issue isn't Berglund's contract, its Lehtera's.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Some thoughts on this:

1) Wonder what Mike Yeo's opinion and expected usage is for Berglund? He must see an important role there.

2) Could there be any chance of a sign and trade? (I highly doubt it, but its not impossible.)

3) More likely, I won't be surprised to learn that Armstrong has some deal in place to be executed later in which Lehtera is going. If he is negative value, fine, but the Blues can still use him as salary and add other value in a deal that is mutually beneficial for both teams. Maybe there is already something agreed to that is pending. I think a lot of deadline deals work this way. Another version of this would be that Stillman has already given the green light on a potential buy-out if necessary.

4) Signing Berglund when he did, the rest of the salary cap for next year becomes increasingly clear for other negotiations (and potential trades).

5) The team must have an impression that Berglund is going to perform at a higher level post-surgery in a sustained fashion. They see him in practice and a lot more situations than the games themselves that we see. Perhaps this signing is telling us that they see a significantly different player than prior to the shoulder surgery. If he became a 50 point player, I think less people would poo poo this signing.

I understand the criticisms. I agree the term is longer than I would ideally want. But I also think the negative ramifications are completely exaggerated in some comments here. The real issue isn't Berglund's contract, its Lehtera's.

And if he became a 90 point player, everyone would petition to have his name on the cup first - it's probably just as likely.

Berglund's contract is unnecessary just from the fact that we have cheaper, and in my opinion, higher-upside replacements already under contract in Barbashev and Sobotka (perhaps equal upside with Sobotka). Why re-sign Berglund to anything but a great deal simply because of that?

I agree that getting rid of Lehtera's contract and getting a good return on Shattenkirk (Johnson/top 6 C) would change this signing from bad to maybe okay, but I still think this is the wrong time, term, and AAV for the wrong player at the wrong age.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Some thoughts on this:

1) Wonder what Mike Yeo's opinion and expected usage is for Berglund? He must see an important role there.

Unless he sees him as a #2C, and he shouldn't, I'm not sure that it really matters. Berglund can play both special teams, but he's never been an important cog of either. He can play up on the second line, but he shouldn't be there. He's basically a giant band-aid. There's value in that, but it's obviously not enough to elevate a team with holes beyond those limitations. We've been seeing that all season. Applying super-Berglund where needed isn't enough. The real issues still need to be addressed. I'd love to keep Berglund AND fix those other roster issues, but as I laid on in a previous post, I don't think it can be done financially.

2) Could there be any chance of a sign and trade? (I highly doubt it, but its not impossible.)

None. Blues organization wouldn't do that to someone, and I'm proud that they wouldn't.

3) More likely, I won't be surprised to learn that Armstrong has some deal in place to be executed later in which Lehtera is going. If he is negative value, fine, but the Blues can still use him as salary and add other value in a deal that is mutually beneficial for both teams. Maybe there is already something agreed to that is pending. I think a lot of deadline deals work this way. Another version of this would be that Stillman has already given the green light on a potential buy-out if necessary.

Seems very cart-before-the-horse-ish to me. If the assumption is that Berglund is "replacing" Lehtera who is out the door in less than a week, then why do they have to ink Berglund's deal before the deadline? He's signed through the rest of the season. Agree in principle, then sign the deal when Lehtera's actually moved. Doing the opposite way is incredibly risky if the Lehtera deal falls through.

I don't think there's much chance that Lehtera is bought out, but I guess it's a possibility. That's ~$1.3-1.6M in dead cap the next 4 years. Signing Berglund and buying out Lehtera actually frees up $0.45-0.75M less cap space than what the Blues would have had by simply not signing Berglund. Berglund's the better player, but is that really a sound plan?

4) Signing Berglund when he did, the rest of the salary cap for next year becomes increasingly clear for other negotiations (and potential trades).

That's one way to put it. Another would be to say that the salary cap options for potential trades and other negotiations have become more limited. Tomato...tomato? Doesn't really work in print, but you get the idea.

5) The team must have an impression that Berglund is going to perform at a higher level post-surgery in a sustained fashion. They see him in practice and a lot more situations than the games themselves that we see. Perhaps this signing is telling us that they see a significantly different player than prior to the shoulder surgery. If he became a 50 point player, I think less people would poo poo this signing.

Seems pretty pie-in-the-sky-ish to me. That threshold represents a 67% increase over his post-surgery production. That's a huge leap forward, and one that (IMO) it would be extremely foolhardy to hope for based on "impressions."

For the record, I actually do think he's looked decidedly better since his shoulder surgery...but he's still been a 30 point player, just a more effective one. Sure this contract suddenly looks a lot better if Berglund becomes a legit #2C. It looks even better if he suddenly becomes a legit #1C. I'd love for either to happen, but I don't think either actually will.

I understand the criticisms. I agree the term is longer than I would ideally want. But I also think the negative ramifications are completely exaggerated in some comments here. The real issue isn't Berglund's contract, its Lehtera's.

IMO, it's both. I made a pretty detailed post about how the Berglund signing effectively kills (or at least significantly hinders) our financial ability to address at least one of our top 6 holes, and potentially both depending on how things play out with other factors.

To me (and ignoring goalies for the moment), having a top 6 C is more important than a top 6 RW, which is in turn more important than a #3 C. Yeah, having that #3C is undeniably better than having nothing, but it doesn't really matter if having that #3C is not enough to be a legitimate contender without filling one or both of the other two voids.

If you believe the italicized, and also that the opportunity cost of the #3C precludes one or both of the more important holes being filled (and I've laid out in detail my reasoning for why I do), then you're pretty much where I am.

I get that not everyone is going to be here with me, but I think we'll be revisiting this conversation as time moves on. It'll be interesting to see which way the wind blows in another year or two around here.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

And if he became a 90 point player, everyone would petition to have his name on the cup first - it's probably just as likely.

Berglund's contract is unnecessary just from the fact that we have cheaper, and in my opinion, higher-upside replacements already under contract in Barbashev and Sobotka (perhaps equal upside with Sobotka). Why re-sign Berglund to anything but a great deal simply because of that?

I agree that getting rid of Lehtera's contract and getting a good return on Shattenkirk (Johnson/top 6 C) would change this signing from bad to maybe okay, but I still think this is the wrong time, term, and AAV for the wrong player at the wrong age.

Your description of Sobotka is entirely at odds with his history. When was Sobotka ever better than Berglund? His career highs are below Berglund's averages, ignoring the possibility that Berglund's average may be a bit better if the injury held him back.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Your description of Sobotka is entirely at odds with his history. When was Sobotka ever better than Berglund? His career highs are below Berglund's averages, ignoring the possibility that Berglund's average may be a bit better if the injury held him back.

Sobotka looked way better with Schwartz and Tarasenko than Berglund ever did his last season here, and looked pretty good in the playoffs as well (when he was averaging over 21 minutes a game, IIRC).

I'd rather use Sobotka in a top 6 role over Berglund if it came to that, but I think Berglund's a better fit on a "traditional" 3rd line than Sobotka is.

Wouldn't surprise me at all to see Lehtera dumped in some way, with Sobotka coming over to fill a top 6 role and with Berglund on the 3rd line. I don't think that's good enough, but I could see it happening.

 

[HolyJumpin]

Steen deal - too early to tell, he's still putting up pts, hard to let a guy like Steen walk, 4 more years is ok with me.
Jaybo - this is revisionist theory going on here. Was anybody ripping on this trade and signing when they occurred? It's easy to criticize the deal, in hindsight, now that Jaybo's offense is dried up, but he's still serviceable on the top pair. This board had been wanting a top LHD for a long while and I think Army did a fine job in filling it for what was paid.

I'll agree with you on the other two as there was not enough reward to sign them a year early.

The Steen contract just seems like we're gonna be *****ing about it like the Bouwmeester contract in a couple of years. And like, I'll admit that I was completely happy with the Bouwmeester resigning when it happened but I loathe it now. It's too expensive for a serviceable player. We could've taken passes at much better LHDs for probably less.

Armstrong seems to really enjoy locking up assets that we have a lot of. 3Cs, mediocre defensemen, and LWs. We've locked up so many replaceable assets we're gonna lose top talent because of it.

 

[Bluesguru]

Berglund has scored at a 31 point pace per 82 games since his shoulder surgery. He's currently shooting 27% above his career average.

As you noted, there are 143 forwards making as much or more than that. That's less than 4.77 per team, which means that Berglund is being paid "top 6" money relative to his peers. Is he a top 6 player? I think the answer to that is an emphatic no.

I know it's really hard for fans to get past how someone is playing this instant, but Berglund is not all of a sudden a "special" 3rd liner worth being overpaid. I like what he brings to the team, but we're already locked into one bad 3rd line center contract for multiple years (Lehtera), have another one under team control at a very reasonable price for use next year (Sobotka), and a potential 3rd one waiting in the wings on an ELC ready to go in the near future (Barbashev).

Using Sobotka next year as our #3 center and then handing that off to Barbashev thereafter seems like a perfectly functional and infinitely more flexible/cost effective plan to me.

Now we're stuck with almost 12% of our cap tied up in two third line centers that, quite frankly, we don't need. It should be obvious, but $8.55 million is a lot of money that could be better invested elsewhere. Even if we write off the Lehtera contract as a sunk cost at this point, the Berglund contract only exacerbates the situation unnecessarily.

This really is well said. My only complaint is Armstrong really doesn't have a plan. Berglund, when motivated, can be a very good player. And it seems like he's picked up some on ice savvy the past couple years. The signing is debatable, especially when you probably could of picked up a 2nd rounder for him at the deadline. Will the Berglund contract be a success or a failure is pointless right now. The problem is Doug Armstrong. This guy really has no clue on constructing a team. This man really relies on phenomenal head coaching to do his heavy lifting. He had it in Dallas with Dave Tippet, here with Hitch & so far with Yeo. But there will be no Cup in St. Louis with DA as GM. He is not a difference maker of a GM who will push a team over the hump. The sooner we get a new GM, the better.

 

[Ranksu]

He is not a difference maker of a GM who will push a team over the hump. The sooner we get a new GM, the better.

How much we've to watch Army hurt this team before Stillman push the button. Dallas fans warned us.

 

[bluesfan3109]

I could see Lehtera and Gunnar gone next year(expansion/trade) and can see the blues going to that older shutdown 3rd line and using something like Bergie-Sobie-Perron for it.

 

[thedustman]

I really love this signing. Berglund essentially signed for what we were already paying him. It takes him to age 33. He has repeatedly stepped it up in big games and playoff games despite working through on ongoing injury that looks to be history now.
Berglund is a player whose point totals don't justify his true value. He finishes his hits, and looks to be better at using his size for puck possession and much more confident lately. Also, I love having my favorite player on the team. I truly believe he is an ingredient in the recipe for the cup.

 

[Renard]

I have been hoping to see Adam Musil as our third line center in a couple of years, not Patrik Berglund.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I have been hoping to see Adam Musil as our third line center in a couple of years, not Patrik Berglund.

Musil might still be. Berglund's contract, especially if he keeps playing like he is, is very moveable, and he can play all 3 forward positions.

 

[David Dennison]

I have been hoping to see Adam Musil as our third line center in a couple of years, not Patrik Berglund.

Its a tad bit early to be penciling in our 3rd line center in 18-19, dont you think? And Musil is a fine prospect and all, but far from a sure thing. He hasnt exactly been a scorer at the WHL level either, we will see if his scoring touch continues to develop.