Blues Trade Proposals - Part VII

[CitizenSnips]

I think we can start taking the word 'slight' out. It's an upgrade. Not an absolutely monsterous upgrade, but it doesn't need to be.

I feel like there is a lot of semantics in this thread. I think Halak and Miller are both well above average but I do not see the point in trading pieces away for Miller and the reason is that its such a small upgrade. We don't need to take out any words because that is what this whole argument is about...what we are willing to give up.

Lundqvist is an upgrade, so is Miller. The asking price for them would be quite a bit different so the word slight does need to be used to emphasize what we would be giving up and the value it would cost the organization to upgrade.

I guess my point, for those still reading my rambling, is I would like to see Miller over Halak but do not see the point in sending that kind of asking price their way for a guy that could walk at the end of the year. I think Miller is a better goalie (not by much) but I really think Halak has the potential to take us further in the playoffs. If we want him that bad, let Halak and Elliott head out at the end of the year and sign Miller for the amount of years we think it will take until Allen is ready because he is the future IMO.

 

[CitizenSnips]

A team looking to contend does not hand the starters spot to a player with 15 NHL games experience. Equally, when we needed to drop salary in the summer why did we sell low on Perron rather than just dumping Halák and going with Allen/Elliott? If we viewed Allen as a starter this season then we would have done that, maybe we would also have moved Perron but Halák would be gone. You don't earn a NHL starters spot in the AHL.

That is not to say that he doesn't steal the starters spot, but he'll have to steal it. It would be insanity to view him as the starter going into the season.

The argument about giving up firsts is just flat out flawed. You can give up your first every single year if you are managing to maintain a solid prospect pool. We have given up our first round pick in 2 of the past 3 seasons and still picked up Rattie, Jaškin, Binnington, Lundström, Edmundson, Eronen, Vanelli and Carrier in those 2 drafts. All those players are developing well, so we are maintaining our system.

As for money... we are currently spending $6.4m on goaltending. Next season we are spending $850k + whatever our starter earns, so we are unlikely to be spending more on goaltending next season than this season. Plenty of areas in the team to save money next season if Armstrong needs to (Morrow gone, Aucoin gone, Sobotka for Berglund?, Jaškin for Stewart?, Cole for Polák?).

I agree 100% except for the last part...

 

[bleedblue1223]

I agree 100% except for the last part...

Right, it would be Cole for Leopold, not Polak.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

It's a "slight" upgrade because Miller won't really win us anymore games than if Halak was in net.

I agree.

In regards to picks, is it safe to say more first round picks pan out than 2nd round picks and so on down the line? I'm not sold on giving up high picks for Miller. I would be more apt to look at throwing in a Kurker with an Andronov, Shattuck, Wannstrom, Ponich (as a mascot), Fairchild, etc. A prospect that is log jammed here. It also frees up contracts. (I would like the Blues to participate more in the college free agent and overage junior free agent market.) Much like the deal with Jbo, we dealt some other prospects that weren't going to play here.

I'm not that sold that Halak/Elliott is the problem. Halak has won a few for us this year. I'm not selling too much to pick up another goalie. How about not giving Ovechkin time to pick his spot to shoot the puck? Whether it is Miller, Ken Dryden, Jacques Plante, Mike Luit, Curtis Joseph....they aren't stopping it. Much like Brett Hull was. We still lose 2 to 1.

I still contend that our issue is the offensive system. I don't think our strategy is getting us in shooting lanes for higher percentage shots. We spend more time on the boards cycling than trying to get free in front of the net or getting traffic in front of the net. Sure you may not get as many chances. Sure you may turn the puck over more. Sure it may create more odd man rushes. However, your chances of scoring are much better in front of the net and in the high slot. Camp Stewart, Berglund, Backes, and Reaves in the crease other than on the power play. Just my observation.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

I agree.

In regards to picks, is it safe to say more first round picks pan out than 2nd round picks and so on down the line? I'm not sold on giving up high picks for Miller. I would be more apt to look at throwing in a Kurker with an Andronov, Shattuck, Wannstrom, Ponich (as a mascot), Fairchild, etc. A prospect that is log jammed here. It also frees up contracts. (I would like the Blues to participate more in the college free agent and overage junior free agent market.) Much like the deal with Jbo, we dealt some other prospects that weren't going to play here.

I'm not that sold that Halak/Elliott is the problem. Halak has won a few for us this year. I'm not selling too much to pick up another goalie. How about not giving Ovechkin time to pick his spot to shoot the puck? Whether it is Miller, Ken Dryden, Jacques Plante, Mike Luit, Curtis Joseph....they aren't stopping it. Much like Brett Hull was. We still lose 2 to 1.

I still contend that our issue is the offensive system. I don't think our strategy is getting us in shooting lanes for higher percentage shots. We spend more time on the boards cycling than trying to get free in front of the net or getting traffic in front of the net. Sure you may not get as many chances. Sure you may turn the puck over more. Sure it may create more odd man rushes. However, your chances of scoring are much better in front of the net and in the high slot. Camp Stewart, Berglund, Backes, and Reaves in the crease other than on the power play. Just my observation.

I mean part of me does want to think that Army can do well with 2 seconds and not a first. I'd be okay with giving up the 1st for a scorer not Miller. I just think it'll be okay since we are vying for a cup and we are somewhat set with a good amount of mid-level guys, and we'll be set if we keep both 2nds. We need more scoring, so I think giving up a 1st will be worth it, maybe conditional if we make it far. i think Kurker is the odd prospect out right now for the most part around these boards, but if I'm Army I trade someone like Vellieux or Andronov, maybe even a Lundstrom or Pochiro.

 

[The Note in MI]

I'm hoping they haul a mic down to center ice in the 2nd intermission and announce that they're swapping goalies. Time to kick out the supports and tank this sum ***** until we can get it to float on its own.

Quote by a poster in the Sabres GDT for the game tonight. I LOL'd

 

[Freyj]

I agree.

In regards to picks, is it safe to say more first round picks pan out than 2nd round picks and so on down the line? I'm not sold on giving up high picks for Miller.

I'm not understanding the obsession with whether we should move our 1st or 2nd rounders at this point. Edmonton is sitting right near the bottom of the league, and I don't see that situation changing drastically by the end of the season. As long as we keep one of: STL 1st, EDM 2nd, who cares? The difference is minimal at best.

If we want to have an argument about who we spend our 1st / EDM 2nd on, that's fine, but spending a high pick to make an upgrade at a significant position on a cup contending team with another pick right beside it isn't a bad proposition.

 

[taylord22]

I must be an oddball. I think that it's silly to give up much more than Halak for Miller, but I also have little doubt Miller is more capable of stealing games.

Yeah, he's 33, but why would we want a long-term solution when Allen and Binnington are on the way? This is basically a cup run pick-up right? If we don't make it this year, the sales pitch to Miller is: "Do you want to try again for a year or two? Or go to a team with an opening, that undoubtedly missed the playoffs last year?".

The crazy part to me, that nobody seems to be talking about, is the notion of waiting til the trade deadline to make a switch in goal. If you're going to do it — you do it before the halfway mark. A STARTING goaltender change is a far too substantial impact to defensive scheme and personality that late in the year.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

I must be an oddball. I think that it's silly to give up much more than Halak for Miller, but I also have little doubt Miller is more capable of stealing games.

Yeah, he's 33, but why would we want a long-term solution when Allen and Binnington are on the way? This is basically a cup run pick-up right? If we don't make it this year, the sales pitch to Miller is: "Do you want to try again for a year or two? Or go to a team with an opening, that undoubtedly missed the playoffs last year?".

The crazy part to me, that nobody seems to be talking about, is the notion of waiting til the trade deadline to make a switch in goal. If you're going to do it — you do it before the halfway mark. A STARTING goaltender change is a far too substantial impact to defensive scheme and personality that late in the year.

Well I think that's why it has come up now, not at the trade deadline.

 

[taylord22]

Well I think that's why it has come up now, not at the trade deadline.

Most rumors refer to it being done at the deadline, though.

 

[Alklha]

I must be an oddball. I think that it's silly to give up much more than Halak for Miller, but I also have little doubt Miller is more capable of stealing games.

Yeah, he's 33, but why would we want a long-term solution when Allen and Binnington are on the way? This is basically a cup run pick-up right? If we don't make it this year, the sales pitch to Miller is: "Do you want to try again for a year or two? Or go to a team with an opening, that undoubtedly missed the playoffs last year?".

The crazy part to me, that nobody seems to be talking about, is the notion of waiting til the trade deadline to make a switch in goal. If you're going to do it — you do it before the halfway mark. A STARTING goaltender change is a far too substantial impact to defensive scheme and personality that late in the year.

I don't think that is really true. Messing with defensive pairing and forward lines will typically have a bigger impact on your team chemistry than replacing the one isolated player out there. Not to say it has no impact, but our 3 goalies are all pretty different as it is.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and get the deal done as soon as possible. It is in our own best interests to do that, if we are looking towards a potential trade. The Sabres coming out and saying they'd be willing to make trades now, not need to wait for a new GM to be named, would imply they are also looking to get things done sooner rather than later.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't think that is really true. Messing with defensive pairing and forward lines will typically have a bigger impact on your team chemistry than replacing the one isolated player out there. Not to say it has no impact, but our 3 goalies are all pretty different as it is.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and get the deal done as soon as possible. It is in our own best interests to do that, if we are looking towards a potential trade. The Sabres coming out and saying they'd be willing to make trades now, not need to wait for a new GM to be named, would imply they are also looking to get things done sooner rather than later.

I agree with this. If the rumors are true and Army was strongly interested in Vanek when he was traded, I could see Army wanting to wait on Miller to try and acquire a forward 1st. The only reason our offense is doing so well is because our first line is at a ppg pace. Do any of us really expect that to maintain?

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Besides Moulson or possibly Vanek from a disappointed Islanders, what other forwards may be available at the deadline who could be targets for the Blues? (I'm not as convinced about Moulson as a lot on this board are. He's a nice player, but I don't see that he would particularly upgrade the Blues offensively....and they'll need to be very careful not to bring in someone who can't execute the game plan effectively in short order.)

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hock...cle_d8b9d527-2fab-5f74-82be-2bef0f319eb5.html

I think the blues will get a forward over a goalie.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Besides Moulson or possibly Vanek from a disappointed Islanders, what other forwards may be available at the deadline who could be targets for the Blues? (I'm not as convinced about Moulson as a lot on this board are. He's a nice player, but I don't see that he would particularly upgrade the Blues offensively....and they'll need to be very careful not to bring in someone who can't execute the game plan effectively in short order.)

We'll have a better idea once teams in the East start to seperate. Gaborik will be available. Reports that Pacioretty could be available. Cammalleri will be available. Someone like Legwand could possibly be had.

We might have to wait till the summer to get a big name though.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

Man I'd love to get Pacioretty.

 

[Alklha]

Man I'd love to get Pacioretty.

As would I, but the price would probably be astronomical. He has 108 points in his last 135 games, is only 24 and has 5+ seasons left on a $4.5m contract.

 

[bleedblue1223]

As would I, but the price would probably be astronomical. He has 108 points in his last 135 games, is only 24 and has 5+ seasons left on a $4.5m contract.

Yep. I think the rumor of him being available is like the rumors over the past coulple years of Kane being available, meaning nothing will happen and it's just Canada media making a big deal about a slow start that's included an injury.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

Someone I would be interested in and I think would be a good fit for the Blues, especially thinking of next year is Simon Despres. Someone brought up on the board he may be available. With the depth we have on the wings, what if we did a Despres for Paarjavi trade? He's big, skates like the wind, good potential top 4 d man ala J-bo who would be a great teacher for him. Don't see Leopold here next year. I don't see Hitchcock letting Paarjavi skate or play much here. Minor deal, but I think could make us better in the long run.

I don't think I'm overrating trading one of three high picks for Miller. I would offer Kurker and some mid level prospects that could crack their line up. That's just me. Use the Cardinals as a model to keep the pipeline flowing to fill needs along the way with tradeable commodities.

 

[TheOrganist]

A team looking to contend does not hand the starters spot to a player with 15 NHL games experience. Equally, when we needed to drop salary in the summer why did we sell low on Perron rather than just dumping Halák and going with Allen/Elliott? If we viewed Allen as a starter this season then we would have done that, maybe we would also have moved Perron but Halák would be gone. You don't earn a NHL starters spot in the AHL.

That is not to say that he doesn't steal the starters spot, but he'll have to steal it. It would be insanity to view him as the starter going into the season

They had no incentive to make Allen the starter this season because they had two solid goaltenders under contract. There were some minor rumblings about Halak in the summer but that was more exploratory to see what his market value was. They weren't moving him unless Philly or X team blew them away with an offer. You actually made a post towards the end of training camp about how the Blues should move Halak or Elliott to make room for Allen because he had a great camp which made no sense either.

Whether you think handing the keys to the heir apparent isn't the right move (plenty of precedents), it's equally insane to trade for a goaltender, sign him to a long-term deal (what, you actually think a really good goaltender will sign for 2 years while Allen backs up until that players contract expires and Allen is deemed ready?), and block your cost controlled stud.

IF Halak completely falls apart and they go fishing for Miller later in the season, you can bet the farm that the acquisition will be for this season and this season only. Much like with our current goaltenders, if Miller sucks then you have Allen waiting. If Miller is amazing and takes you places than he's getting massive money on the open market which would make no sense for the Blues financially with…say it with me…Allen waiting.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Someone I would be interested in and I think would be a good fit for the Blues, especially thinking of next year is Simon Despres. Someone brought up on the board he may be available. With the depth we have on the wings, what if we did a Despres for Paarjavi trade? He's big, skates like the wind, good potential top 4 d man ala J-bo who would be a great teacher for him. Don't see Leopold here next year. I don't see Hitchcock letting Paarjavi skate or play much here. Minor deal, but I think could make us better in the long run.

I don't think I'm overrating trading one of three high picks for Miller. I would offer Kurker and some mid level prospects that could crack their line up. That's just me. Use the Cardinals as a model to keep the pipeline flowing to fill needs along the way with tradeable commodities.

We have no use for him with Cole proving his worth, 7 NHL defenders signed through next season and a solid group of defensemen of varying styles showing promise.

 

[Oberyn]

We're loaded with wing and D prospects at the moment so I don't see a pressing need a acquire any more. If we flipped a wing prospect for an equally good center prospect, that would be nice.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

We have no use for him with Cole proving his worth, 7 NHL defenders signed through next season and a solid group of defensemen of varying styles showing promise.

Sorry, my mistake. I thought Leopold signed a one year deal.

 

[Alklha]

They had no incentive to make Allen the starter this season because they had two solid goaltenders under contract. There were some minor rumblings about Halak in the summer but that was more exploratory to see what his market value was. They weren't moving him unless Philly or X team blew them away with an offer. You actually made a post towards the end of training camp about how the Blues should move Halak or Elliott to make room for Allen because he had a great camp which made no sense either.

Whether you think handing the keys to the heir apparent isn't the right move (plenty of precedents), it's equally insane to trade for a goaltender, sign him to a long-term deal (what, you actually think a really good goaltender will sign for 2 years while Allen backs up until that players contract expires and Allen is deemed ready?), and block your cost controlled stud.

IF Halak completely falls apart and they go fishing for Miller later in the season, you can bet the farm that the acquisition will be for this season and this season only. Much like with our current goaltenders, if Miller sucks then you have Allen waiting. If Miller is amazing and takes you places than he's getting massive money on the open market which would make no sense for the Blues financially with…say it with me…Allen waiting.

Seriously?

If the team viewed Jake Allen as a NHL starter then he would be in the NHL right now, that isn't even up for debate. You earn a starters spot in the NHL, not the AHL, so he won't be viewed as a starter going into next season either.

Jake Allen is viewed as a back up. Long term we certainly hope he'll be the teams starter, but he has a lot to prove between now and then. The idea that we shouldn't try to address a position within the organisation on the basis we have a rookie with 15 games experience and a .905 save percentage is crazy.

As you keep pointing out, Jake Allen is cost controlled. He will remain cost controlled on his next contract. If he plays 30 great games next season then he is still not going to be getting huge money. We can afford to have another goalie and Allen for another 3 years after this one.

Now, to repeat, I'm not on the Ryan Miller bandwagon... but we need a starter for next season. If Armstrong doesn't see Halák here beyond this season, and he views Miller as a starter, the making a move for Miller makes a lot of sense. Maybe we do keep Halák, maybe we get someone else. If what he views as a long term solution is available then he would be stupid not to make that deal. If Jake Allen pans out, then we have a good problem to solve in a couple of years.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I don't think Halak is going to be here next season. The team is saying the right things, supporting him, trying to maximize his production....but I think the reality is that he's been on the whole a disappointment. I'm not sure what they'll do about a start for next year, but I doubt that its Halak.

That being the case, maybe Miller does start to look like the best realistic option.