Blues Trade Proposals Part XXI

[Dbrownss]

There's next to no chance that Shatty walks in FA (we'd be willing to give him whatever he wanted, and he gets to remain in an environment he is comfortable in.

Especially when you compare this to the likelihood that Johansen doesn't want to re-sign here, and we aren't willing to pay him +8M, it's not a good argument.

Are you Kevin Shattenkirk? Because only he knows that.

 

[EastonBlues22]

It's just as possible that Johansen is performing at a 60 something point level at the end of next year, and demanding an $8-9 million AAV on his next contract, regardless of length. If the Blues don't pay up, he's shown a willingness to hold out for every last cent he can get for his RFA years, then he becomes a UFA one year after Shattenkirk. That scenario isn't far-fetched at all. One might even say that it's likely.

Johansen isn't some sort of panacea. He has very real red flags, very real financial concerns, and there's zero guarantee he puts it all together to be the sort of impact center that some so desperately want him to be (or that the switch improves the team on the ice).

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Are you Kevin Shattenkirk? Because on he knows that.

No, but I did sleep at a holiday inn last night.

Seriously though, I'd rather take my chances with Shatty (the better player imo) than roll the dice with Johansen.

 

[Oberyn]

It's just as possible that Johansen is performing at a 60 something point level at the end of next year, and demanding an $8-9 million AAV on his next contract, regardless of length. If the Blues don't pay up, he's shown a willingness to hold out for every last cent he can get for his RFA years, then he becomes a UFA one year after Shattenkirk. That scenario isn't far-fetched at all. One might even say that it's likely.

Johansen isn't some sort of panacea. He has very real red flags, very real financial concerns, and there's zero guarantee he puts it all together to be the sort of impact center that some so desperately want him to be (or that the switch improves the team on the ice).

What would be your suggestion for the Blues in this situation then? I feel like you're never in favor of any proposals brought up, so I'm curious to hear how you would improve the Blues with the pieces we currently have. It's likely that this current edition of the Blues will falter as usual in the playoffs.

This isn't mean to be an attack on you or anything, I'm just genuinely curious.

 

[Dbrownss]

No, but I did sleep at a holiday inn last night.

Seriously though, I'd rather take my chances with Shatty (the better player imo) than roll the dice with Johansen.

I LoL'd


That's a perfectly fine position to take and I'm not saying I wouldn't take it too. I just view it as here's the closest thing to a potential 1C. The next is Fabbri and as much of a fan boy I am...it's not likely.

It just seems this is a no win situation. Well probably just continue to spin our wheels in semi good mediocrity

 

[BlueMagic]

For those who want a legitimate #1 center but dont want to give up Shatty to do so, how do you suppose we go about that? I highly doubt we are going to be able to give a team a package of a bunch of stuff we don't want or need and get back a true #1 center.

 

[ManyIdeas]

For those who want a legitimate #1 center but dont want to give up Shatty to do so, how do you suppose we go about that? I highly doubt we are going to be able to give a team a package of a bunch of stuff we don't want or need and get back a true #1 center.

Scott Stevens?

 

[Note Worthy]

For those who want a legitimate #1 center but dont want to give up Shatty to do so, how do you suppose we go about that? I highly doubt we are going to be able to give a team a package of a bunch of stuff we don't want or need and get back a true #1 center.

I think everybody gets that but if we are going to package Shattenkirk for a number one center then let's make sure it's the right one and not a bordline 1C.

Otherwise, with Shattenkirk's production, the team would be better off hanging on to him.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

For those who want a legitimate #1 center but dont want to give up Shatty to do so, how do you suppose we go about that? I highly doubt we are going to be able to give a team a package of a bunch of stuff we don't want or need and get back a true #1 center.

I don't think we NEED an elite 1C, but if we're keeping Shatty (oh my god we should keep him):

1) FA: Stamkos
2) Offer picks ad prospects for RyJo and hope they get desperate (are going to blow it up anyway).
3) Spitball offers on Malkin, Getzlaf, Wheeler, Duchene, etc. and weigh the give against the get.
4) Trade pieces and picks and draft one in the mid-first.

In the meantime - get that 2RW scorer.

 

[EastonBlues22]

What would be your suggestion for the Blues in this situation then? I feel like you're never in favor of any proposals brought up, so I'm curious to hear how you would improve the Blues with the pieces we currently have. It's likely that this current edition of the Blues will falter as usual in the playoffs.

This isn't mean to be an attack on you or anything, I'm just genuinely curious.

Well, I don't think most of these trade proposals do much to address the underlying problems of the team, which I think are more systematic/philosophical than personnel/talent based at this point. Personally, I think step number one is finding a new coach, and quite possibly a new GM.

The Blues have the talent on defense to be an elite transition team. Hitchcock has been struggling for years to get the most out of the Blues in that area, especially in the playoffs where teams are able to develop and implement opponent specific game plans more easily than during the regular season.

If you have an elite transition game, you're going to be a very competitive team. Our raw talent in that area is one reason why we've been such a good regular season team in recent years. Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk are both capable of single-handedly driving transition play even when the system is a mess, and they often do, but that becomes so much harder for them in the playoffs when teams are scheming specifically to take them away. I think the Blues need to find a coach who can maximize the team's potential in that area to really take the next step. It would be priority number one if I was in charge.

I'd like to see a defined philosophical shift towards focusing more on either possession or counter-attack play. If it's the former, we need to place more of an organizational emphasis on forwards with raw puck skills (in addition to the other qualities we value). If it's the latter, more on speed.

Either way, the Blues approach to drafting forwards outside of the first round needs a serious overhaul, IMO. Whichever route is chosen will help determine which players on our current roster are expendable, and what types of players we should be targeting to draft/acquire.

Short and long-term, I'd encourage our defensemen to be as active as possible (both in transition, and when set up in the zone). Not just aggressively pinching, but actively cycling down low and executing weak-side attacks. Chicago does this, and it creates a lot of offensive chances for them. We had a lot of success with it early in the year. We definitely have the talent on the back end to justify doing it (with more on the way in Dunn, etc.), but I think it grates against Hitchcock's conservative tendencies.

There are other things that I'd like to see as well, but those are some major ones.

Bottom line for me is that this team isn't a player swap away from fixing anything. Even if Johansen didn't have any question marks or concerns, what does trading Shattenkirk for him accomplish? We've just moved one really important player putting up a lot of points for another one at a different position. If we haven't increased the talent level of the team or fixed a bigger picture problem, we're basically just shuffling deck chairs.

Is that going to fix our transition game? Almost certainly not. It could actually make it worse, given how important Shattenkirk is to that. Is the team going to score more goals? Well, Johansen will score more than Shattenkirk, but there will also be an overall decrease in goals from the poorer transition play and less efficient power play. They'll also give up a few more than they would have otherwise given up due to the downgrade on defense. Personally, I think it's unlikely that there's a significant positive net effect on the team's GF/GA ratio.

Is it going to lead to post-season success? Almost certainly not. Shattenkirk's been a PPG player the last two playoffs. Even if Johansen replicates that production and plays relatively sound defense, we're still just basically treading water in terms of raw talent level. Unless you're upgrading the roster talent, this team's post-season success (or lack of it) will once again come down to getting the most out of the talent we have in terms of team play. Now we've circled back around to our coach.

Does it fill a long-term roster hole? Well, maybe. This is where all those concerns with Johansen come into play. I think Shattenkirk is more likely to stick around, and much more likely to be affordable, and less likely to be a headache in any other way. Since they are both impact players at premium positions, the choice is an easy one for me.

There's a distinct difference between moving Shattenkirk for a center who might be the right center, and moving him for someone that we are confident is the right center. Shattenkirk is just too valuable to move for a maybe. If that trade is out there, then it should be explored...but if it doesn't exist, then you just have to find another way.

 

[carter333167]

^^^^^^I agree with Easton...both regarding the tactical issues and Hitch as well as with the general thought that RJ is not a sure-fire elite center that justifies trading away an elite offensive D-Man.

Let's fix the tactical and transition issues and then evaluate what we really need.

 

[BlueMagic]

I agree with a lot of what Easton had to say as well. I'm not necessarily a big proponent of trading Shatty for Johansen even though I've been talking about it quite a bit. I do however think that we need a better player centering Tarasenko than Stastny. I think an underlying issue with the team the past few years has to do with leadership but that's a better topic for the discussion thread than it is here.

 

[Oberyn]

Well, I don't think most of these trade proposals do much to address the underlying problems of the team, which I think are more systematic/philosophical than personnel/talent based at this point. Personally, I think step number one is finding a new coach, and quite possibly a new GM.

The Blues have the talent on defense to be an elite transition team. Hitchcock has been struggling for years to get the most out of the Blues in that area, especially in the playoffs where teams are able to develop and implement opponent specific game plans more easily than during the regular season.

If you have an elite transition game, you're going to be a very competitive team. Our raw talent in that area is one reason why we've been such a good regular season team in recent years. Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk are both capable of single-handedly driving transition play even when the system is a mess, and they often do, but that becomes so much harder for them in the playoffs when teams are scheming specifically to take them away. I think the Blues need to find a coach who can maximize the team's potential in that area to really take the next step. It would be priority number one if I was in charge.

I'd like to see a defined philosophical shift towards focusing more on either possession or counter-attack play. If it's the former, we need to place more of an organizational emphasis on forwards with raw puck skills (in addition to the other qualities we value). If it's the latter, more on speed.

Either way, the Blues approach to drafting forwards outside of the first round needs a serious overhaul, IMO. Whichever route is chosen will help determine which players on our current roster are expendable, and what types of players we should be targeting to draft/acquire.

Short and long-term, I'd encourage our defensemen to be as active as possible (both in transition, and when set up in the zone). Not just aggressively pinching, but actively cycling down low and executing weak-side attacks. Chicago does this, and it creates a lot of offensive chances for them. We had a lot of success with it early in the year. We definitely have the talent on the back end to justify doing it (with more on the way in Dunn, etc.), but I think it grates against Hitchcock's conservative tendencies.

There are other things that I'd like to see as well, but those are some major ones.

Bottom line for me is that this team isn't a player swap away from fixing anything. Even if Johansen didn't have any question marks or concerns, what does trading Shattenkirk for him accomplish? We've just moved one really important player putting up a lot of points for another one at a different position. If we haven't increased the talent level of the team or fixed a bigger picture problem, we're basically just shuffling deck chairs.

Is that going to fix our transition game? Almost certainly not. It could actually make it worse, given how important Shattenkirk is to that. Is the team going to score more goals? Well, Johansen will score more than Shattenkirk, but there will also be an overall decrease in goals from the poorer transition play and less efficient power play. They'll also give up a few more than they would have otherwise given up due to the downgrade on defense. Personally, I think it's unlikely that there's a significant positive net effect on the team's GF/GA ratio.

Is it going to lead to post-season success? Almost certainly not. Shattenkirk's been a PPG player the last two playoffs. Even if Johansen replicates that production and plays relatively sound defense, we're still just basically treading water in terms of raw talent level. Unless you're upgrading the roster talent, this team's post-season success (or lack of it) will once again come down to getting the most out of the talent we have in terms of team play. Now we've circled back around to our coach.

Does it fill a long-term roster hole? Well, maybe. This is where all those concerns with Johansen come into play. I think Shattenkirk is more likely to stick around, and much more likely to be affordable, and less likely to be a headache in any other way. Since they are both impact players at premium positions, the choice is an easy one for me.

There's a distinct difference between moving Shattenkirk for a center who might be the right center, and moving him for someone that we are confident is the right center. Shattenkirk is just too valuable to move for a maybe. If that trade is out there, then it should be explored...but if it doesn't exist, then you just have to find another way.

So you're fine with the status quo in the roster? I agree with getting a new coach and GM, but I also believe the talent on this roster isn't good enough.

The team is barren in center talent, especially if Backes walks. Stastny is a second liner and Lehtera/Berglund are third liners. Look at the Cup winners in the last ten years. The first line centers of the last five cups have been Toews and Kopitar who are elite two-way centers, Krejci who is an absolute monster in the playoffs, and then you have Crosby/Datsyuk/Getzlaf/Staal as you go on. The Blues have gone with either Backes or Stastny as the top center, and they have failed to produce when it matters.

I don't see how you can proclaim that moving Shattenkirk for Johansen will almost certainly lead to less postseason success. The Blues have boasted an impressive defensive core the last four playoffs and have done squat with it. Maybe "shuffling deck chairs" is the change this team needs to get over the hump.

If you're content with getting a new coach and running with Stastny/Lehtera as your top two centers, then I can't say I'll be too excited for next season. Those two are simply not talented enough to propel a roster through the postseason.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Easton, thanks for the articulate post. Clear and logical. This is why I stick around this board.

 

[EastonBlues22]

So you're fine with the status quo in the roster? I agree with getting a new coach and GM, but I also believe the talent on this roster isn't good enough.

The team is barren in center talent, especially if Backes walks. Stastny is a second liner and Lehtera/Berglund are third liners. Look at the Cup winners in the last ten years. The first line centers of the last five cups have been Toews and Kopitar who are elite two-way centers, Krejci who is an absolute monster in the playoffs, and then you have Crosby/Datsyuk/Getzlaf/Staal as you go on. The Blues have gone with either Backes or Stastny as the top center, and they have failed to produce when it matters.

I don't see how you can proclaim that moving Shattenkirk for Johansen will almost certainly lead to less postseason success. The Blues have boasted an impressive defensive core the last four playoffs and have done squat with it. Maybe "shuffling deck chairs" is the change this team needs to get over the hump.

If you're content with getting a new coach and running with Stastny/Lehtera as your top two centers, then I can't say I'll be too excited for next season. Those two are simply not talented enough to propel a roster through the postseason.

I was happier with the talent level before the Oshie trade, but I'm not interested in rentals for this year, or in massively overhauling the roster right before the coach and GM might be going out the door. If roster changes need to be made, let the new guy(s) build the roster that fits their vision.

As far as the center depth goes, that's a situation that can play itself out this offseason. Backes will either sign an extension, or get ready to hit the market. If he does, Stamkos, Kopitar, and even guys like Nielsen are currently slated to be UFAs. Even something like Stastny, Lehtera, and Nielsen down the middle isn't the end of the world if the rest of your team is up to snuff. Long term, Fabbri and Barbashev still have a shot at filling a center slot internally.

Pinning this team's playoff failures on the lack of an elite #1 center is overly simplistic. If having great centers was the be-all-end-all of playoff success, Pittsburgh would win a Cup every year. Cup winning teams typically have good players throughout the lineup, and they play well as a team besides. You don't see many Cup winning teams that don't have at least a pair of very high quality defensemen, with two more extremely solid guys to round out their top 4, either.

Tarasenko and Shattenkirk have produced when it mattered, but the rest of the team simply wasn't playing well enough together. If Tarasenko was a center instead of a winger, would that have put the Blues over the hump? Kane and Keith are the two most important players on Chicago, for my money, and neither one is a center. If anyone drives that team, it's those two. Their #2 center position has been a wasteland for years.

I guess what I'm saying is that talent makes a difference, regardless of what position it plays. If the team has a sound system, is playing well together, and has enough talent...it can win. There's no need for it to conform to some theoretical optimized lineup construction.

Also, I'm not saying that trading Shattenkirk for Johansen will "lead to less postseason success." The Blues have had no significant postseason success, so it's hard to have less. What I am saying is that Hitchcock's inability to get the most out of the transition game and conservative tendencies has hamstrung the best aspects of his team when it matters the most.

Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk have been two of our three or four best players the last few playoffs. If the team is underachieving, it's not because of them. Switching out one of the few pieces that have been working for one that you hope will work doesn't seem like much of a plan for improvement to me.

 

[Note Worthy]

#EastonForGM

 

[BlueMagic]

I was happier with the talent level before the Oshie trade, but I'm not interested in rentals for this year, or in massively overhauling the roster right before the coach and GM might be going out the door. If roster changes need to be made, let the new guy(s) build the roster that fits their vision.

As far as the center depth goes, that's a situation that can play itself out this offseason. Backes will either sign an extension, or get ready to hit the market. If he does, Stamkos, Kopitar, and even guys like Nielsen are currently slated to be UFAs. Even something like Stastny, Lehtera, and Nielsen down the middle isn't the end of the world if the rest of your team is up to snuff. Long term, Fabbri and Barbashev still have a shot at filling a center slot internally.

Pinning this team's playoff failures on the lack of an elite #1 center is overly simplistic. If having great centers was the be-all-end-all of playoff success, Pittsburgh would win a Cup every year. Cup winning teams typically have good players throughout the lineup, and they play well as a team besides. You don't see many Cup winning teams that don't have at least a pair of very high quality defensemen, with two more extremely solid guys to round out their top 4, either.

Tarasenko and Shattenkirk have produced when it mattered, but the rest of the team simply wasn't playing well enough together. If Tarasenko was a center instead of a winger, would that have put the Blues over the hump? Kane and Keith are the two most important players on Chicago, for my money, and neither one is a center. If anyone drives that team, it's those two. Their #2 center position has been a wasteland for years.

I guess what I'm saying is that talent makes a difference, regardless of what position it plays. If the team has a sound system, is playing well together, and has enough talent...it can win. There's no need for it to conform to some theoretical optimized lineup construction.

Also, I'm not saying that trading Shattenkirk for Johansen will "lead to less postseason success." The Blues have had no significant postseason success, so it's hard to have less. What I am saying is that Hitchcock's inability to get the most out of the transition game and conservative tendencies has hamstrung the best aspects of his team when it matters the most.

Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk have been two of our three or four best players the last few playoffs. If the team is underachieving, it's not because of them. Switching out one of the few pieces that have been working for one that you hope will work doesn't seem like much of a plan for improvement to me.

Can't argue with that.

Im curious to hear your thoughts on Backes abilities as the captain of the team. I couldn't agree more with your diagnosis of Hitchcock but I've also thought that team leadership has been a big part of our playoff failures the last four years. I know that should be spread across the assistant captains as well but I would like to single out Backes in this instance.

 

[TheOrganist]

Well, I don't think most of these trade proposals do much to address the underlying problems of the team, which I think are more systematic/philosophical than personnel/talent based at this point. Personally, I think step number one is finding a new coach, and quite possibly a new GM.

The Blues have the talent on defense to be an elite transition team. Hitchcock has been struggling for years to get the most out of the Blues in that area, especially in the playoffs where teams are able to develop and implement opponent specific game plans more easily than during the regular season.

If you have an elite transition game, you're going to be a very competitive team. Our raw talent in that area is one reason why we've been such a good regular season team in recent years. Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk are both capable of single-handedly driving transition play even when the system is a mess, and they often do, but that becomes so much harder for them in the playoffs when teams are scheming specifically to take them away. I think the Blues need to find a coach who can maximize the team's potential in that area to really take the next step. It would be priority number one if I was in charge.

I'd like to see a defined philosophical shift towards focusing more on either possession or counter-attack play. If it's the former, we need to place more of an organizational emphasis on forwards with raw puck skills (in addition to the other qualities we value). If it's the latter, more on speed.

Either way, the Blues approach to drafting forwards outside of the first round needs a serious overhaul, IMO. Whichever route is chosen will help determine which players on our current roster are expendable, and what types of players we should be targeting to draft/acquire.

Short and long-term, I'd encourage our defensemen to be as active as possible (both in transition, and when set up in the zone). Not just aggressively pinching, but actively cycling down low and executing weak-side attacks. Chicago does this, and it creates a lot of offensive chances for them. We had a lot of success with it early in the year. We definitely have the talent on the back end to justify doing it (with more on the way in Dunn, etc.), but I think it grates against Hitchcock's conservative tendencies.

There are other things that I'd like to see as well, but those are some major ones.

Bottom line for me is that this team isn't a player swap away from fixing anything. Even if Johansen didn't have any question marks or concerns, what does trading Shattenkirk for him accomplish? We've just moved one really important player putting up a lot of points for another one at a different position. If we haven't increased the talent level of the team or fixed a bigger picture problem, we're basically just shuffling deck chairs.

Is that going to fix our transition game? Almost certainly not. It could actually make it worse, given how important Shattenkirk is to that. Is the team going to score more goals? Well, Johansen will score more than Shattenkirk, but there will also be an overall decrease in goals from the poorer transition play and less efficient power play. They'll also give up a few more than they would have otherwise given up due to the downgrade on defense. Personally, I think it's unlikely that there's a significant positive net effect on the team's GF/GA ratio.

Is it going to lead to post-season success? Almost certainly not. Shattenkirk's been a PPG player the last two playoffs. Even if Johansen replicates that production and plays relatively sound defense, we're still just basically treading water in terms of raw talent level. Unless you're upgrading the roster talent, this team's post-season success (or lack of it) will once again come down to getting the most out of the talent we have in terms of team play. Now we've circled back around to our coach.

Does it fill a long-term roster hole? Well, maybe. This is where all those concerns with Johansen come into play. I think Shattenkirk is more likely to stick around, and much more likely to be affordable, and less likely to be a headache in any other way. Since they are both impact players at premium positions, the choice is an easy one for me.

There's a distinct difference between moving Shattenkirk for a center who might be the right center, and moving him for someone that we are confident is the right center. Shattenkirk is just too valuable to move for a maybe. If that trade is out there, then it should be explored...but if it doesn't exist, then you just have to find another way.

Great post regarding what's holding this team back. Couldn't agree more.

 

[MissouriMook]

#EastonForGM

Sorry, I've already nominated him for coach.

Unless....

maybe he wants both roles?

 

[Captain Creampuff]

I was happier with the talent level before the Oshie trade, but I'm not interested in rentals for this year, or in massively overhauling the roster right before the coach and GM might be going out the door. If roster changes need to be made, let the new guy(s) build the roster that fits their vision.

As far as the center depth goes, that's a situation that can play itself out this offseason. Backes will either sign an extension, or get ready to hit the market. If he does, Stamkos, Kopitar, and even guys like Nielsen are currently slated to be UFAs. Even something like Stastny, Lehtera, and Nielsen down the middle isn't the end of the world if the rest of your team is up to snuff. Long term, Fabbri and Barbashev still have a shot at filling a center slot internally.

Pinning this team's playoff failures on the lack of an elite #1 center is overly simplistic. If having great centers was the be-all-end-all of playoff success, Pittsburgh would win a Cup every year. Cup winning teams typically have good players throughout the lineup, and they play well as a team besides. You don't see many Cup winning teams that don't have at least a pair of very high quality defensemen, with two more extremely solid guys to round out their top 4, either.

Tarasenko and Shattenkirk have produced when it mattered, but the rest of the team simply wasn't playing well enough together. If Tarasenko was a center instead of a winger, would that have put the Blues over the hump? Kane and Keith are the two most important players on Chicago, for my money, and neither one is a center. If anyone drives that team, it's those two. Their #2 center position has been a wasteland for years.

I guess what I'm saying is that talent makes a difference, regardless of what position it plays. If the team has a sound system, is playing well together, and has enough talent...it can win. There's no need for it to conform to some theoretical optimized lineup construction.

Also, I'm not saying that trading Shattenkirk for Johansen will "lead to less postseason success." The Blues have had no significant postseason success, so it's hard to have less. What I am saying is that Hitchcock's inability to get the most out of the transition game and conservative tendencies has hamstrung the best aspects of his team when it matters the most.

Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk have been two of our three or four best players the last few playoffs. If the team is underachieving, it's not because of them. Switching out one of the few pieces that have been working for one that you hope will work doesn't seem like much of a plan for improvement to me.

Besides the center position. Do you honestly believe the team we have right now is good enough to win the cup this year. Because after this year it's basically going to come down to either keeping Shatty or Backes. With Allen's emergence, he's going to be getting a little more money as well as Schwartz. I know we have guys like Ott, Gunnar, and Berglund coming off the books relatively soon but we will still lose a quality player for nothing it seems and then the team will be even worse than it is now. Now after Shatty has came back and been so important to our offense, I'm even more wary than I was to trade him. But where does that leave our team for the future?

 

[Oberyn]

I was happier with the talent level before the Oshie trade, but I'm not interested in rentals for this year, or in massively overhauling the roster right before the coach and GM might be going out the door. If roster changes need to be made, let the new guy(s) build the roster that fits their vision.

As far as the center depth goes, that's a situation that can play itself out this offseason. Backes will either sign an extension, or get ready to hit the market. If he does, Stamkos, Kopitar, and even guys like Nielsen are currently slated to be UFAs. Even something like Stastny, Lehtera, and Nielsen down the middle isn't the end of the world if the rest of your team is up to snuff. Long term, Fabbri and Barbashev still have a shot at filling a center slot internally.

Pinning this team's playoff failures on the lack of an elite #1 center is overly simplistic. If having great centers was the be-all-end-all of playoff success, Pittsburgh would win a Cup every year. Cup winning teams typically have good players throughout the lineup, and they play well as a team besides. You don't see many Cup winning teams that don't have at least a pair of very high quality defensemen, with two more extremely solid guys to round out their top 4, either.

Tarasenko and Shattenkirk have produced when it mattered, but the rest of the team simply wasn't playing well enough together. If Tarasenko was a center instead of a winger, would that have put the Blues over the hump? Kane and Keith are the two most important players on Chicago, for my money, and neither one is a center. If anyone drives that team, it's those two. Their #2 center position has been a wasteland for years.

I guess what I'm saying is that talent makes a difference, regardless of what position it plays. If the team has a sound system, is playing well together, and has enough talent...it can win. There's no need for it to conform to some theoretical optimized lineup construction.

Also, I'm not saying that trading Shattenkirk for Johansen will "lead to less postseason success." The Blues have had no significant postseason success, so it's hard to have less. What I am saying is that Hitchcock's inability to get the most out of the transition game and conservative tendencies has hamstrung the best aspects of his team when it matters the most.

Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk have been two of our three or four best players the last few playoffs. If the team is underachieving, it's not because of them. Switching out one of the few pieces that have been working for one that you hope will work doesn't seem like much of a plan for improvement to me.

Kopitar is set to sign an extension with the Kings and I doubt the Blues will entertain entering a bidding war for Stamkos against a team like Toronto. I can't say I'm a fan of Stastny/Lehtera/Nielsen down the middle personally, but I guess that's just a difference of opinion.

The Blues lack of playoff success isn't solely based on a #1 center, I agree. However, it's the one area the Blues have lacked since they became a contender despite having a solid core group of players. The Blues have finally built strong depth in all positions aside from the down the middle, perhaps it's time to solidify that area with a #1.

Cup winning teams do have high quality defensemen, but they don't have to be world beaters. If Shattenkirk gets dealt, the Blues have a top four of Pietrangelo/Bouwmeester/Parayko/Gunnarsson. The Hawks had Keith/Seabrook/Hjalmarsson/Odyua. The Kings had Doughty/Muzzin/Martinez/Voynov. I don't see how the Blues group is much worse than the Hawks or the Kings group.

Kane and Keith were the main catalysts for the Hawks, but Toews was the guy who could shut down opposing team's top lines while still producing at a respectable pace. Backes can do the shutting down, but he clearly can't put up points at the same time. Lehtera/Stastny were non-factors in the playoffs last year and I don't expect much to change this year judging from their play so far.

My theoretical lineup construction is validated from the past cup winners in the last decade. All these teams have had a #1C, #1D, and #1G. The only argument could be Carolina not having a #1D but that was compensated with having a ridiculous forward corp and an unbeatable Cam Ward. It's a formula that has proven to work in the past.

Look, do I want to trade Shattenkirk? Not particularly. But the Blues have spent the last five years building up this core of players. They're strong on the wings, possess a solid core of defensemen, and Allen is looking like the goalie of the future. At this point, why not solidify the last glaring weakness on the roster by dealing from an area of strength.

Trading Shattenkirk hurts, but Parayko filled in admirably early in the season when he was injured. The powerplay suffered, but you also have to consider the impact that a 1C will have on the top unit. Ryan Johansen in for Paul "flubs the easiest passes" Stastny is a big boost, and Pietrangelo has shown in the past that he's dependable on the PP.

I think this argument has run it's course. I believe the Blues' woes are based mainly on talent and you believe it's based mainly on the system. I get where you're coming from, and the logic behind your reasoning is well articulated. I certainly agree with some of your points regarding Hitch's system, but I'm still of the belief that the lack of a top flight center hurts this team the most. It's not something we agree with, but hey, can't have a discussion board without any discussion.

 

[Xerloris]

Can't argue with that.

Im curious to hear your thoughts on Backes abilities as the captain of the team. I couldn't agree more with your diagnosis of Hitchcock but I've also thought that team leadership has been a big part of our playoff failures the last four years. I know that should be spread across the assistant captains as well but I would like to single out Backes in this instance.

Personally I want Backes to be traded because I feel Tarasenko should be the captain of this team. It's not right to strip the C and then keep the player.

 

[MissouriMook]

Pinning this team's playoff failures on the lack of an elite #1 center is overly simplistic. If having great centers was the be-all-end-all of playoff success, Pittsburgh would win a Cup every year. Cup winning teams typically have good players throughout the lineup, and they play well as a team besides. You don't see many Cup winning teams that don't have at least a pair of very high quality defensemen, with two more extremely solid guys to round out their top 4, either.

Tarasenko and Shattenkirk have produced when it mattered, but the rest of the team simply wasn't playing well enough together. If Tarasenko was a center instead of a winger, would that have put the Blues over the hump? Kane and Keith are the two most important players on Chicago, for my money, and neither one is a center. If anyone drives that team, it's those two. Their #2 center position has been a wasteland for years.

Reading these two paragraphs got me to thinking. Even if it is only a temporary solution, I wonder if it would be helpful to flip Stastny and Backes. Stastny seems to be gripping his stick too tight, and we still have not seen the Stastny that played for Colorado as recently as the 2014 playoffs. Maybe putting him in a primarily checking role, at least for a short period of time, will help him work through whatever is holding him back. At the same time, Backes and Tarasenko have shown some chemistry in their limited time together, and it might be worthwhile to explore whether or not that can grow with Backes in a primarily offensive role as our #1C. At this point, I feel he deserves that role more than the Blues version of Stastny, but I sure hope Stastny works out of his funk and reclaims that title in the next 3-1/2 months.

56-42-91
20-26-36
15-12-23

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

Personally I want Backes to be traded because I feel Tarasenko should be the captain of this team. It's not right to strip the C and then keep the player.

I think Steen and even Pietrangelo are ahead of Tarasenko in terms of leadership roles and being the next captain.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I think Steen and even Pietrangelo are ahead of Tarasenko in terms of leadership roles and being the next captain.

C - Steen
A - Pietrangelo
A - Tarasenko
A - Shattenkirk (if possible)