Meatwagon
Blues=Overrated
Sure, if a hockey net was the size of a soccer goal.
His high & wide is creeping into Brad Boyes territory. Even if the goal was the size of a FIFA goal, he still try to pick the corners and miss high & wide.
Blues Trade Proposals Part XIX
- Thread starter EastonBlues22
- Start date
- Status
Sure, if a hockey net was the size of a soccer goal.
His high & wide is creeping into Brad Boyes territory. Even if the goal was the size of a FIFA goal, he still try to pick the corners and miss high & wide.
Dbrownss
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2014
- 31,359
- 8,734
It's not that simple as it changes year to year. That's why. Pittsburgh is the only team with 2 elite #1 centers, so you can still judge by top 30.
542365
2018-19 Cup Champs!
- Mar 22, 2012
- 22,328
- 8,705
Being top 30 in points by centers makes him a 1C. There is no debating that. He's a 1C, absolutely no question about it. Now is he worth Shattenkirk? That's a different debate, but to say he's not a 1C is factually incorrect. He is, without a doubt, a 1C. No question.
carter333167
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2013
- 6,958
- 3,120
I fear that Steen has caught Pietrangelitis,
Seriously though, Steen doesn't IMO have a very accurate shot.
Dbrownss
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2014
- 31,359
- 8,734
WiscoBlues
Registered User
No worse than saying Couture was in the top 30 for points for a center and claiming he is a number 1 center.
It doesn't work that way because of teams like Pittsburgh.
But my point is that the Blues issues are in the playoffs. Not the regular season. So when we make considerations, it should be with that in mind.
But look at the teams that have made the Conference Finals over the past few seasons. Most have a top 16 center. Not just a top 30.
So what I'm trying to point out is that a NHL 1st line center (defined as top 30 in points) is not the same as a NHL 1st line playoff center (defined as top 16 in points).
Neither is a great way to judge, but if one is going to use that method, why bother with non-playoff teams? Especially if we are discussing how to WIN in the playoffs, and not just make them.
They just fall of trees, right?
Shattenkirk averages 48 points per 82 over the course of his career. He was on a pace to score 65 last season.
The 17th highest scoring center last season scored 65 points last season. The 30th scored 55 points.
I don't want to trade our ~55 point defenseman for a 60 point center. That's horrible asset management. I know it isn't easy to find this kind of player. I don't believe I ever suggested it would be.
But I think you are significantly undervaluing Shattenkirk. He was tied for 20th in scoring amongst defensemen despite missing 24 games last season.
It's not that I undervalue Shatty, I just think the going rate for top end centers is higher than what Shatty's worth. However, if he plays at a Norris caliber level for the whole season next year, that would be enough to change that.
Dbrownss
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2014
- 31,359
- 8,734
Idk I'm usually too busy beating my head against the wall when we face the Canucks to pay attention to their players. Edler seems like a less Boumeester/ better Gunnarsson
Gunnarson for futures at the trade deadline? I realize it is all contingent on his level of play this season, but I somehow don't think Gunner is going to "wow" us enough to extend his contract. He is also injury prone. Any ideas as to what value Gunner would have at the deadline if he stays healthy? If we could get a 2nd or a good prospect we could move Lindbohm up next to Shatty and use Borts and Edmundson/Butler as a 3rd pairing for the playoffs. Yes, it is a big risk, but it's not like anything else has worked in recent years.
Gunnarsson will likely walk at the end of this season because of all the defensive prospects we have, but if we're in the race he's not likely to command a big enough return that would be worth trading.
He's not like Backes where I'll be mad if we get nothing for him.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
I have no interest in dumping Gunnarsson for futures at the deadline. He's better than Lindbohm and Edmundson right now. It doesn't make sense to just dump him. As a team trying to win a cup, we need to be rolling out six best defenseman out every night and he's comfortably in that group.
Majorityof1
Registered User
It depends on how this team gels. If we are not in a position to make a run for the cup, I would be in favor of dumping anyone we don't expect to re-sign for futures. Personally, at this point, I'd rather dump useful players for futures at the TDL than the alternative of dumping futures for a ill-fated run at the cup (or the second round). We aren't going anywhere this year and have traded too many futures in the past to not go anywhere. Unless this team is clicking and looks really good, proving me wrong, I'd be ok with getting whatever we can get for guys we would otherwise lose.
That said, I think there is a decent chance Gunnarson comes back, but that depends on Lindbohm. If Lindbohm steps up and looks like a 2nd pair D at the end of the season, Gunnar's days are numbered. If not, I doubt Gunnar would price us out of a re-sign.
That said, I think there is a decent chance Gunnarson comes back, but that depends on Lindbohm. If Lindbohm steps up and looks like a 2nd pair D at the end of the season, Gunnar's days are numbered. If not, I doubt Gunnar would price us out of a re-sign.
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
Had a terrible dream where traded Backes to the Maple Leafs for futures. Was awful and seemed to last a day.
Multimoodia
Sicker Than Usual
I can see where that would give you nightmares. We all know that Armstrong would at least find a redundant prospect and a mid-line older player to take Backes' place so you don't have to worry about straight futures trades.
All kidding aside, it might not be a bad thing. If Toronto is a playoff bubble team at the TDL, I can see them giving up a 1st to get a wildcard spot. Even with Shanny and Lou in charge. Backes for a mid round 1st? The only problem is Army would have to persuade Backes to waive his NTC. Now that's a hard sell. 
- Status
