Blues Trade Proposals 2019-20 - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

EastVillageBlues

Registered User
Feb 18, 2019
1,002
592
A trade involving Mittelstadt for Dunn is intruiging.

Mitts has a lower floor then Dunn, but also has a higher ceeling. I wouldn't mind rolling the dice on him.

Yeah, Mitts is the type of player that's worthy of giving a look, especially if Mikkola and Perunovich will both be full-timers by the end of the season; Dunn is nice, but redundant with Perunovich coming up.

I would probably do Dunn + 4th for Mitts + 3rd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eich Jackel

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,327
Erwin, TN
Would you do Mitts straight up for Dunn?
I’m probably a minority opinion. I was wary about the Mittelstadt pick at the draft, and I don’t bet on him putting it together in a meaningful way. I wouldn’t be looking to acquire what I think is a project player at this point in the Blues’ trajectory.

I’d put more value on next year’s 1st rounder as the main piece coming back. If Dunn moves out for a 1st rounder somewhere, I could live with that. But the most recent interview I heard from Armstrong I was surprised to hear him talking about Dunn playing on the 3rd pairing and needing to force his way up the line-up. To me, he looked like the odd man out when Krug was acquired. Maybe it was just GM speak, but I think he’s available.
 

Blueston

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 4, 2016
18,700
19,283
Houston, TX
I’m probably a minority opinion. I was wary about the Mittelstadt pick at the draft, and I don’t bet on him putting it together in a meaningful way. I wouldn’t be looking to acquire what I think is a project player at this point in the Blues’ trajectory.

I’d put more value on next year’s 1st rounder as the main piece coming back. If Dunn moves out for a 1st rounder somewhere, I could live with that. But the most recent interview I heard from Armstrong I was surprised to hear him talking about Dunn playing on the 3rd pairing and needing to force his way up the line-up. To me, he looked like the odd man out when Krug was acquired. Maybe it was just GM speak, but I think he’s available.
Agreed. And I don't see fit for Mitts here. We already have about 6 centers better than him and even if we move Schenn to wing I don't see Mitts as great 3rd line option.
 

Xanadude

Registered User
Jun 12, 2018
510
477
Ballwin
Agreed. And I don't see fit for Mitts here. We already have about 6 centers better than him and even if we move Schenn to wing I don't see Mitts as great 3rd line option.
If STL ownership thinks Mitts is going to be that 1/2c tweener he projected to be, I trust them. IMO you can never have enough depth down the middle, and if Mittelstadt hits that potential, Schenn on LW and Thomas on RW are luxuries we could really use if 91 is never the same.

I still think DeBrusk for Dunn makes way too much sense for both teams, however. I'm on the phone with Sweeney rn before arbitration if I'm Army.
 

WeWentBlues

Registered User
May 3, 2017
2,061
1,798
If STL ownership thinks Mitts is going to be that 1/2c tweener he projected to be, I trust them. IMO you can never have enough depth down the middle, and if Mittelstadt hits that potential, Schenn on LW and Thomas on RW are luxuries we could really use if 91 is never the same.

I still think DeBrusk for Dunn makes way too much sense for both teams, however. I'm on the phone with Sweeney rn before arbitration if I'm Army.
I personally don't see the fit with Boston for Dunn. I think they would prefer to promote Vaakanainen and/or Zboril.
 

EastVillageBlues

Registered User
Feb 18, 2019
1,002
592
If STL ownership thinks Mitts is going to be that 1/2c tweener he projected to be, I trust them. IMO you can never have enough depth down the middle, and if Mittelstadt hits that potential, Schenn on LW and Thomas on RW are luxuries we could really use if 91 is never the same.

I still think DeBrusk for Dunn makes way too much sense for both teams, however. I'm on the phone with Sweeney rn before arbitration if I'm Army.

Right;

Mitts was clearly rushed by the Sabres. Some in Buffalo actually expected him to replace ROR minutes in 2018, which was just fantasy at that point.

I think if he's properly developed, he would have a more than fair chance to get close to his potential, I'd give it maybe 65 - 70% chance to become a top-6 forward (not necessarily center, since he isn't great defensively). Dunn is already a top-4 with a couple of small issues holding him back that should be pretty correctable, so I think someone that lacks LD, like Buffalo or Montreal, should find him in their top-4 easily as early as sometime next season.
 

Stealth JD

Don't condescend me, man.
Sponsor
Jan 16, 2006
16,678
7,944
Bonita Springs, FL
Value of: - Anthony Cirelli

This could work if we could move Bozak (even retained for $1-$2M). Much rather have Cirelli than Kostin & Kyrou.

Perron-ROR-Sanford
Schwartz-Cirelli-Schenn
Blais-Thomas-Tarasenko
Barbashev-Sundqvist-MacEachern/Clifford

Then we could trade Dunn for a young winger to hold Tarasenko's spot until he returns.
 

Ranksu

Crotch Academy ftw
Sponsor
Apr 28, 2014
19,662
9,296
Lapland
We better find Something really out of Dunn. Our prospect pool looks thin. Get pick or prospect.
 

Reality Czech

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
4,893
7,801
A trade involving Mittelstadt for Dunn is intruiging.

Mitts has a lower floor then Dunn, but also has a higher ceeling. I wouldn't mind rolling the dice on him.

I wouldn't mind that either, especially since I don't see a long-term future on this team for Dunn. He's redundant at this point.
 

sfvega

Registered User
Apr 20, 2015
3,101
2,445
I'd be a lot more comfortable parting ways with Blais at this point than I would be with Sanford. Sanford may never be a first liner, but I think he is still a ways away from his ceiling and could be a 25/25/50 player in the next few years. Blais will never be that, I fear, and his physicality is far more replaceable down in the lineup than Sanford's scoring touch.

100%. I like DeBrusk, but it seems like outside of his upside, he would project a lot like Sanford here. 2nd line winger with a good shot. And probably more expensive long-term.

I love Blais' aggressiveness, but I've never really seen the offensive upside that a segment of our fanbase claims is there. Then again, I didn't see it in Sanford for a while either. But I always liked his game. And he played great last season. I'd rather stand pat with Dunn and Sanford, but I'd love to pull the trigger on Dunn + Blais for DeBrusk given our glut of PMD rn.
 

sfvega

Registered User
Apr 20, 2015
3,101
2,445
Personally I'd do Johnson+2021 2nd OR Mitts straight up.

I wouldn't hate Johnson and a 2nd for Dunn. It would be hard to protect Dunn, and if he stayed, it would be hard to pay him past a short bridge deal. You can never have too many D prospects, esp after we passed on a lot of guys in the draft for a gritty, Armstrong-type forward. And we could definitely use our 2nd back, or yours is even better (maybe....)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eich Jackel

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
Floated this idea on the main boards. Deal with the devil, Vince Dunn for Ryan Graves.
 
Last edited:

Beauterham

Registered User
Aug 19, 2018
1,518
1,280
Floatedthis idea on the man boards. Deal with the devil, Vince Dunn for Ryan Graves.

Ryan Graves is another LHD. The reason why Dunn could become expandable is because we have more capable options on LHD, trading for Graves will keep us in the exact same position, only Graves is older and possibly has a higher cap then Dunn is going to get. If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather have Dunn.

The Avalanche isn't a good trading partner for us, unless we can add to Dunn and somehow pry Newhook away from them instead of Graves. But they're never going to agree to that.
 

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
Ryan Graves is another LHD. The reason why Dunn could become expandable is because we have more capable options on LHD, trading for Graves will keep us in the exact same position, only Graves is older and possibly has a higher cap then Dunn is going to get. If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather have Dunn.

The Avalanche isn't a good trading partner for us, unless we can add to Dunn and somehow pry Newhook away from them instead of Graves. But they're never going to agree to that.
I understand your point, but I like Graves' size and defensive play. He looks like a real two-way player. A left side of Krug-Scandella-Graves would be awesome. Trade Gunnarsson and keep Mikkola as a fill-in for injuries.
 

Beauterham

Registered User
Aug 19, 2018
1,518
1,280
I understand your point, but I like Graves' size and defensive play. He looks like a real two-way player. A left side of Krug-Scandella-Graves would be awesome. Trade Gunnarsson and keep Mikkola as a fill-in for injuries.

How about Timmins + instead of Graves?
In my opinion a trade like this will hinder Mikkola and Perunovich development. Mikkola needs to play next season (which is why they gave him a one way contract), with Perunovich also not being far away. Don't exactly know how to rate Timmins, but if we "have" to trade with the Avalanche for a third pairing D. I'd rather go with a righty.
 

sfvega

Registered User
Apr 20, 2015
3,101
2,445
I understand your point, but I like Graves' size and defensive play. He looks like a real two-way player. A left side of Krug-Scandella-Graves would be awesome. Trade Gunnarsson and keep Mikkola as a fill-in for injuries.

I agree. I'd upgrade Dunn's defensive game in a heartbeat, because for as much faith as we have in Perunovich and Mikkola, we've seen guys who we thought were ready before fall flat. He'd be worth protecting as well.
 

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
How about Timmins + instead of Graves?
In my opinion a trade like this will hinder Mikkola and Perunovich development. Mikkola needs to play next season (which is why they gave him a one way contract), with Perunovich also not being far away. Don't exactly know how to rate Timmins, but if we "have" to trade with the Avalanche for a third pairing D. I'd rather go with a righty.
I would like a RD prospect too, but the problem is that Colorado, like ourselves, have more depth on the LD. I doubt they make that trade. I am also concerned about Timmins concussion history. Oh well, perhaps we are just not good trading partners.
 

BlueOil

"well-informed"
Apr 28, 2010
7,027
4,022
How about Timmins + instead of Graves?
In my opinion a trade like this will hinder Mikkola and Perunovich development. Mikkola needs to play next season (which is why they gave him a one way contract), with Perunovich also not being far away. Don't exactly know how to rate Timmins, but if we "have" to trade with the Avalanche for a third pairing D. I'd rather go with a righty.
will timmins ever reach his potential or even crack an nhl roster with his concussion issues? avs fans are starting to give up hope on him already
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->