Blues Trade Proposals Part XXIII

[MortiestOfMortys]

From all reports Drouin's stock seems to be falling to everyone except Yzerman. What does it take to get him in a Blues sweater?

edit: If the price is Fabbri or Parayko forget it, Is Schmaltz + Rattie or Yaskin + 1st or 2nd enough?

Who's this Yaskin character?

 

[Spektre]

Who's this Yaskin character?

When he gets 5 goals I'll make sure to spell check his name

 

[MissouriMook]

I still don't think making significant roster moves is the right thing to do with this team until we get the coaching situation sorted out. See how far the group gets this year as currently constructed and then hit the reset button. I just really don't understand the structural philosophy of this team anymore, and so much of it just seems too contradictory. The biggest problems I see are:

1. Inability to move through the neutral zone - our transition game get shut down way too easily because the forwards receiving the outlet passes from the defense are usually standing still. You don't see "fast" teams like Dallas or Chicago waiting to come up the ice as a five man unit because it doesn't work. If the opponent stands up at their blueline in the middle of the ice, we have no choice but to chip the puck in, move from the blueline to the corner with possession, or turn the puck over. Best case scenario seems to be having the defense carry the puck into the zone, but that generally results in the puck below the goal line before it ever enters a dangerous shooting area, so the overload value of this play disappears when the opposing forwards are allowed time to get back.

2. Inability to turn possession into chances - I don't think I've ever seen a team have so much possession and do nothing with it. Its as if the whole offensive zone philosophy is to try to get the puck back to the point instead of to the net. And why oh why are we still surprised when trying to get defensive traffic in front results in blocked shots instead of screen goalies?

3. Inability to force turnovers at our blueline - this should be the golden goose of a team that has great possession numbers and great transitional defenders. Force the opponent to make a bad choice entering your zone and either clean up the dump-in and send the play back the other way or turn the puck over and create an odd man rush in your favor. Instead we back into the zone and allow the opponent to set up shop and hope we can force them to the perimeter for a turnover or a bad shot. The approach is just way too passive.

Ultimately, there are a couple of faces I wouldn't mind seeing move along after this year is up. Still, if we are going to play a more up-tempo game because we are drafting or acquiring more up-tempo players, why have an archaic coaching philosophy that creates value and chances by slowing the game down?

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I still don't think making significant roster moves is the right thing to do with this team until we get the coaching situation sorted out. See how far the group gets this year as currently constructed and then hit the reset button. I just really don't understand the structural philosophy of this team anymore, and so much of it just seems too contradictory. The biggest problems I see are:

1. Inability to move through the neutral zone - our transition game get shut down way too easily because the forwards receiving the outlet passes from the defense are usually standing still. You don't see "fast" teams like Dallas or Chicago waiting to come up the ice as a five man unit because it doesn't work. If the opponent stands up at their blueline in the middle of the ice, we have no choice but to chip the puck in, move from the blueline to the corner with possession, or turn the puck over. Best case scenario seems to be having the defense carry the puck into the zone, but that generally results in the puck below the goal line before it ever enters a dangerous shooting area, so the overload value of this play disappears when the opposing forwards are allowed time to get back.

2. Inability to turn possession into chances - I don't think I've ever seen a team have so much possession and do nothing with it. Its as if the whole offensive zone philosophy is to try to get the puck back to the point instead of to the net. And why oh why are we still surprised when trying to get defensive traffic in front results in blocked shots instead of screen goalies?

3. Inability to force turnovers at our blueline - this should be the golden goose of a team that has great possession numbers and great transitional defenders. Force the opponent to make a bad choice entering your zone and either clean up the dump-in and send the play back the other way or turn the puck over and create an odd man rush in your favor. Instead we back into the zone and allow the opponent to set up shop and hope we can force them to the perimeter for a turnover or a bad shot. The approach is just way too passive.

Ultimately, there are a couple of faces I wouldn't mind seeing move along after this year is up. Still, if we are going to play a more up-tempo game because we are drafting or acquiring more up-tempo players, why have an archaic coaching philosophy that creates value and chances by slowing the game down?

Good post. I agree with all counts. I don't think its wise to part with the 1st rounder or any significant prospect in obtaining a rental. I think a deal for Drouin is a different matter, but still not sure whether that would be wise...willing to trust the pro scouts on that judgement.

But better to retain anything of value until a new coach is in place. The Blues have a strong defensive corps with great transition skills....but it doesn't seem to amount to much. I think under different coaching it might.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I still don't think making significant roster moves is the right thing to do with this team until we get the coaching situation sorted out. See how far the group gets this year as currently constructed and then hit the reset button. I just really don't understand the structural philosophy of this team anymore, and so much of it just seems too contradictory. The biggest problems I see are:

1. Inability to move through the neutral zone - our transition game get shut down way too easily because the forwards receiving the outlet passes from the defense are usually standing still. You don't see "fast" teams like Dallas or Chicago waiting to come up the ice as a five man unit because it doesn't work. If the opponent stands up at their blueline in the middle of the ice, we have no choice but to chip the puck in, move from the blueline to the corner with possession, or turn the puck over. Best case scenario seems to be having the defense carry the puck into the zone, but that generally results in the puck below the goal line before it ever enters a dangerous shooting area, so the overload value of this play disappears when the opposing forwards are allowed time to get back.

2. Inability to turn possession into chances - I don't think I've ever seen a team have so much possession and do nothing with it. Its as if the whole offensive zone philosophy is to try to get the puck back to the point instead of to the net. And why oh why are we still surprised when trying to get defensive traffic in front results in blocked shots instead of screen goalies?

3. Inability to force turnovers at our blueline - this should be the golden goose of a team that has great possession numbers and great transitional defenders. Force the opponent to make a bad choice entering your zone and either clean up the dump-in and send the play back the other way or turn the puck over and create an odd man rush in your favor. Instead we back into the zone and allow the opponent to set up shop and hope we can force them to the perimeter for a turnover or a bad shot. The approach is just way too passive.

Ultimately, there are a couple of faces I wouldn't mind seeing move along after this year is up. Still, if we are going to play a more up-tempo game because we are drafting or acquiring more up-tempo players, why have an archaic coaching philosophy that creates value and chances by slowing the game down?

These are valid criticisms of the team's play, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The jump from identifying the problem to pinning them on Hitchcock seems tenuous though, doesn't it? I mean, these things don't sound to me like they're necessarily coaching-based. It seems just as logical to me to pin the blame on poor execution. Given the way we played when we were doing well at the beginning of the season (and we were playing well), it doesn't sound very valid to say Hitch only has, and only can have a negative effect on the team. For me, when I watch the team, it looks like they're tired, and that they're not executing the plays that they were able to earlier in the season. So to that end, maybe it does make sense to bring someone in who hasn't been on the most injured team in the league all season and probably still has more juice in their legs.

Besides, this is likely Hitchcock's last season coaching. He's not going out unceremoniously, and Armstrong isn't going to kick the fourth-winningest NHL coach of all time out onto the street. It's just not going to happen. I can guarantee his career isn't going to end like that. So what's the point of saying that all is lost unless the coach who has kept this team afloat is fired, when everyone knows that is never going to happen?

 

[2 Minute Minor]

These are valid criticisms of the team's play, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The jump from identifying the problem to pinning them on Hitchcock seems tenuous though, doesn't it? I mean, these things don't sound to me like they're necessarily coaching-based. It seems just as logical to me to pin the blame on poor execution. Given the way we played when we were doing well at the beginning of the season (and we were playing well), it doesn't sound very valid to say Hitch only has, and only can have a negative effect on the team. For me, when I watch the team, it looks like they're tired, and that they're not executing the plays that they were able to earlier in the season. So to that end, maybe it does make sense to bring someone in who hasn't been on the most injured team in the league all season and probably still has more juice in their legs.

Besides, this is likely Hitchcock's last season coaching. He's not going out unceremoniously, and Armstrong isn't going to kick the fourth-winningest NHL coach of all time out onto the street. It's just not going to happen. I can guarantee his career isn't going to end like that. So what's the point of saying that all is lost unless the coach who has kept this team afloat is fired, when everyone knows that is never going to happen?

You're reading those comments a bit differently than I did....and maybe more accurately, too.

One thing about Hitchcock that gets parroted here a lot is that he has an antiquated system, etc. But during his tenure here I've seen Hitchcock innovate and run multiple different styles. He has adjusted based on what personnel he has, and how they're playing...but not very often who they're playing. I think his philosophy is that "We're going to do our thing and its on you to stop us."

I do think there is a renewed energy that comes after a big trade, a new coach, etc. I just don't see what more Hitchcock can squeeze out of this group.

 

[Ranksu]

Besides, this is likely Hitchcock's last season coaching. He's not going out unceremoniously, and Armstrong isn't going to kick the fourth-winningest NHL coach of all time out onto the street. It's just not going to happen. I can guarantee his career isn't going to end like that. So what's the point of saying that all is lost unless the coach who has kept this team afloat is fired, when everyone knows that is never going to happen?

Hitch contract end after this season so there won't be fireing him out. They just shouldn't give new 1-year deal anymore.

Blues problem isn't just Hitch, its D. Armstrong and Hitch and assistant coach Kirk Muller.

Brad Shaw is questionmark and tbh he has worked fine with our defense / pairs.

So sum up after current season Stillman need to hire new GM and his job is to find coaches + assistant coaches.




But knowing Army has 1-year left after this season it means Hitch stay + Muller.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Good post. I agree with all counts. I don't think its wise to part with the 1st rounder or any significant prospect in obtaining a rental. I think a deal for Drouin is a different matter, but still not sure whether that would be wise...willing to trust the pro scouts on that judgement.

But better to retain anything of value until a new coach is in place. The Blues have a strong defensive corps with great transition skills....but it doesn't seem to amount to much. I think under different coaching it might.

Right, anyone we trade for needs to have the future in mind. No rentals, and no to trading a 1st for a Hartnell type that has significant age.

If we trade a 1st or significant futures, it needs to be for someone about 28 or younger that is not a rental. Drouin makes a lot of sense as a calculated risk. RNH depending on his recovery either at the deadline or draft also makes sense. Similar players that can contribute now, but also in the future.

This team could use a lift, and a trade could give them a short-term boost, Army just needs to make sure that whoever we acquire also gives the team a long-term boost. Sure we could make a big deal for Stamkos, Eriksson, or Staal, but this team doesn't have a realistic chance at a Cup, and when those 3 walk in the summer, we are left with nothing.

 

[MissouriMook]

These are valid criticisms of the team's play, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The jump from identifying the problem to pinning them on Hitchcock seems tenuous though, doesn't it? I mean, these things don't sound to me like they're necessarily coaching-based. It seems just as logical to me to pin the blame on poor execution.

I can't say I agree. If the players are playing "incorrectly" (and that comes with an assumption that one agrees that they are) with a high level of consistency, one of two things has to be true. Either they are being coached to play this way, or they are not being coached out of playing this way. I tend to believe it is the former, but either way it is absolutely on the coaches when players are consistently playing in a manner that is not conducive to positive outcomes.

I can't say that I have ever seen this team even attempt to consistently move through the neutral zone with speed or (with the exception of last year when Borts and Lindbohm "didn't know any better') stand opponents up at our blue line. Our offensive philosophy is clearly built around moving up the ice as a five man unit, regardless of how much that slows the play down, and our defensive philosophy is clearly built around allowing zone entry, but trying to direct it towards the perimeter and win a puck battle. Both of these things are true regardless of who is injured and who is in the lineup. We tend to have better transitions when the forwards get back quicker, but that also abandons most opportunities for quick transitions as the forwards who the puck can be transitioned to are generally in their own zone providing puck support.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Forgive my ignorance, who is LW? Left Wing or a person?

LW as in Left Wing, I was making a joke due to all the "trade rumors" about us targeting a LW.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Right, anyone we trade for needs to have the future in mind. No rentals, and no to trading a 1st for a Hartnell type that has significant age.

If we trade a 1st or significant futures, it needs to be for someone about 28 or younger that is not a rental. Drouin makes a lot of sense as a calculated risk. RNH depending on his recovery either at the deadline or draft also makes sense. Similar players that can contribute now, but also in the future.

This team could use a lift, and a trade could give them a short-term boost, Army just needs to make sure that whoever we acquire also gives the team a long-term boost. Sure we could make a big deal for Stamkos, Eriksson, or Staal, but this team doesn't have a realistic chance at a Cup, and when those 3 walk in the summer, we are left with nothing.

Do you really think this team has no chance for a cup? Easy test: are you cheering for losses, or wins?

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I can't say I agree. If the players are playing "incorrectly" (and that comes with an assumption that one agrees that they are) with a high level of consistency, one of two things has to be true. Either they are being coached to play this way, or they are not being coached out of playing this way. I tend to believe it is the former, but either way it is absolutely on the coaches when players are consistently playing in a manner that is not conducive to positive outcomes.

I can't say that I have ever seen this team even attempt to consistently move through the neutral zone with speed or (with the exception of last year when Borts and Lindbohm "didn't know any better') stand opponents up at our blue line. Our offensive philosophy is clearly built around moving up the ice as a five man unit, regardless of how much that slows the play down, and our defensive philosophy is clearly built around allowing zone entry, but trying to direct it towards the perimeter and win a puck battle. Both of these things are true regardless of who is injured and who is in the lineup. We tend to have better transitions when the forwards get back quicker, but that also abandons most opportunities for quick transitions as the forwards who the puck can be transitioned to are generally in their own zone providing puck support.

Exactly. They are being coached to do these things that are completely limiting our offense - and aren't often resulting in shutdown defense, either. Adding Schwartz back (a boards guy) should help us win those board battles and transition better, but I don't think this is how we should be playing.

 

[KirkOut]

Do you really think this team has no chance for a cup? Easy test: are you cheering for losses, or wins?

What? I cheer for wins because I love the Blues. But I'm not blind to the fact that this team looks much worse than we have in previous years, and we know how those seasons ended.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

What? I cheer for wins because I love the Blues. But I'm not blind to the fact that this team looks much worse than we have in previous years, and we know how those seasons ended.

We're only slightly statistically worse in SOME areas than we were last year, and we had far more injuries this year. How are we much worse than previous years? Just looking at the lines should tell you that is absolutely not true; looking at stats backs this up, too.

Cheering for losses doesn't mean you don't like your team: Leafs, Sabres, and lots of other fans cheer for losses - it's so they can draft higher. If we're putting more hope in our late 1st than our playoffs hopes, we should be rooting for losses - not wins.

 

[KirkOut]

We're only slightly statistically worse in SOME areas than we were last year, and we had far more injuries this year. How are we much worse than previous years? Just looking at the lines should tell you that is absolutely not true; looking at stats backs this up, too.

Cheering for losses doesn't mean you don't like your team: Leafs, Sabres, and lots of other fans cheer for losses - it's so they can draft higher. If we're putting more hope in our late 1st than our playoffs hopes, we should be rooting for losses - not wins.

What stats? Last year we finished 4th in goals against per game and 5th in goals for per game. This year we are currently 9th in GA/G and 22nd in GF/G. That sounds much worse to me. We had plenty of injuries last year as well.

But more important than stats, just watch the games. Game after game is another sad display, even in wins. There would have to be a major turnaround before I believe they have any chance to win the Stanley Cup

 

[bleedblue1223]

Do you really think this team has no chance for a cup? Easy test: are you cheering for losses, or wins?

I'm cheering for wins, but I just have no faith in this team. Compared to previous Blues teams, this one is much worse IMO.

 

[Dbrownss]

We're only slightly statistically worse in SOME areas than we were last year, and we had far more injuries this year. How are we much worse than previous years? Just looking at the lines should tell you that is absolutely not true; looking at stats backs this up, too.

Cheering for losses doesn't mean you don't like your team: Leafs, Sabres, and lots of other fans cheer for losses - it's so they can draft higher. If we're putting more hope in our late 1st than our playoffs hopes, we should be rooting for losses - not wins.

Unless this team is pulling the biggest rope a dope....they aren't a cup team. From behind the bench to poor execution....this team just doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[Overkamp]

Unless this team is pulling the biggest rope a dope....they aren't a cup team. From behind the bench to poor execution....this team just doesn't inspire confidence.

It's hard for me to believe that anyone thinks that they are a cup contender.

I'd rather the Blues try to trade up into the draft this year. Trade Backes for a first to an East Coast contender. Package your two firsts and try to move way up.

Blues can still add a good player at the deadline that can help this team this year..and even can re-sign Backes if they wanted to in the offseason.

Clearly, none of this will happen but I can dream.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

What stats? Last year we finished 4th in goals against per game and 5th in goals for per game. This year we are currently 9th in GA/G and 22nd in GF/G. That sounds much worse to me. We had plenty of injuries last year as well.

But more important than stats, just watch the games. Game after game is another sad display, even in wins. There would have to be a major turnaround before I believe they have any chance to win the Stanley Cup

We had relatively few injuries outside of Stastny and Shattenkirk last year. This year we have close to most man-games lost. We have a slightly under GF60 and a better GA60 this year.

GF60 '14 vs '15: 2.69/2.38
GA60 '14 vs '15: 2.21/2.34

Factoring in injuries, and lower scoring all around the league, we're just as good as we were last year - maybe even better now that Fabbri is getting time over Brouwer, and we've stopped playing Upshall/Gomez/etc in the top 9.

Adding a player like Eriksson puts us, at the very least, over the Wild in the playoffs - and that's not even adding in our new players: Fabbri, Brodziak, Parayko, Edmundson, Brouwer, Upshall, Rattie, new Berglund versus Goc, Michalek, Oshie, Jokinen, and Jackman. Everyone except Oshie was replaced with far superior players, and Oshie versus Fabbri doesn't look to be that bad.

It's reasonable to feel like this team doesn't have a chance, I suppose, but it's not like our chances are any worse than any other team not name Chicago or Washington.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

It's hard for me to believe that anyone thinks that they are a cup contender.

I'd rather the Blues try to trade up into the draft this year. Trade Backes for a first to an East Coast contender. Package your two firsts and try to move way up.

Blues can still add a good player at the deadline that can help this team this year..and even can re-sign Backes if they wanted to in the offseason.

Clearly, none of this will happen but I can dream.

Personally I don't see a need for moving up in the draft. I'd rather try to sign or trade for a solid scorer or playmaker. To me, this team isn't far from serious contention. With Schwartz coming back, I like the setup of this team aside from the coach for the most part. It'll require more assets than we need to give up for a top 10 pick.

 

[Spektre]

Do you really think this team has no chance for a cup? Easy test: are you cheering for losses, or wins?

To be perfectly honest I was somewhat happy when the Blues lost in game 6 last year. I wasn't cheering for them to lose but I was hoping yet another early exit would result in a big new direction.

If you can show me where to bet against the Blues winning the cup this year I will gladly invest. I say invest because a sure thing isn't considered gambling. The only % that the Blues win it all is the fact they'll make the playoffs. So mathematically the numbers exist but in reality this team has 0% of raising the cup.

The Blues are a better than average team. Facts are just facts and at the end of the day you are who you are.

I would give them some kind of shot if they outworked every team they played. But that hasn't and it won't happen.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

Yeah, sorry but I have no faith in this team winning the cup. That doesn't mean that I hope they lose.

 

[MissouriMook]

Personally I don't see a need for moving up in the draft. I'd rather try to sign or trade for a solid scorer or playmaker. To me, this team isn't far from serious contention. With Schwartz coming back, I like the setup of this team aside from the coach for the most part. It'll require more assets than we need to give up for a top 10 pick.

I like the setup of the team in general as well, and I agree about your first point about trying to trade for or sign a scorer or a playmaker to a degree. I really don't think that our Top 6 is a problem outside of the need for another top 6 center. At wing, when healthy, we currently have Tarasenko, Schwartz and Steen. If Fabbri continues to develop, I think he makes the cut there next year. The only need we really have in our Top 6 is developing someone to replace Steen and a top 6 C to push Stastny and Lehtera down the depth chart. One of the reasons I like the idea of bringing in Drouin is he could conceivably solve either problem. Next year...

Schwartz-???-Tarasenko
Steen-Stastny-Fabbri
[3rd line]
Jaskin-Brodziak-Upshall

That 3rd line can be a pretty solid one using multiple combinations of Sobotka, Berglund, Lehtera, Rattie and Paajarvi. In this scenario, you've moved on from Backes, one of Berglund and Sobotka, and one of Rattie and Paajarvi. That frees up a lot of cash to re-sign Schwartz, extend Shattenkirk, and fill in the blank at #1C. I don't really think you need to have an elite guy there, though I think Stamkos would be worth tying up some of that extra cash if you could talk him into coming here with the lure of playing with Tarasenko. Still someone like Couture or RNH would probably be a fine fit there, depending on who you have to give up to get them.

In my mind, it still all boils down to usage and strategy, which is why I favor a coaching/philosophical change over any major moves. At the draft, if Berglund and our first can allow us to move up 5 spots or so, it might make the difference between a guy with top line potential (replacement for Steen) and a guy who is likely a middle six guy. But with Hitch (or Tippett, whose name has been bounced around as a potential replacement) you're probably not going to get much bang for your buck in moving up in the draft because the conservative offensive approach isn't likely to get the most out of the type of player you would be targeting.

 

[Thallis]

We're only slightly statistically worse in SOME areas than we were last year, and we had far more injuries this year. How are we much worse than previous years? Just looking at the lines should tell you that is absolutely not true; looking at stats backs this up, too.

Cheering for losses doesn't mean you don't like your team: Leafs, Sabres, and lots of other fans cheer for losses - it's so they can draft higher. If we're putting more hope in our late 1st than our playoffs hopes, we should be rooting for losses - not wins.

This team has played its best hockey while hurt. When relatively healthy, they've gone on the longest losing streaks of the year. Given up multi goal games repeatedly. Just because you acknowledge this team doesn't have the makeup of a cup contender, doesn't mean you're cheering for losses. Frankly, your head needs to be buried pretty deep in the sand to ignore it.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

This team has played its best hockey while hurt. When relatively healthy, they've gone on the longest losing streaks of the year. Given up multi goal games repeatedly. Just because you acknowledge this team doesn't have the makeup of a cup contender, doesn't mean you're cheering for losses. Frankly, your head needs to be buried pretty deep in the sand to ignore it.

I know we just lost to the Blackhawks, so I understand where all the doom and gloom is coming from. Claiming that it's so obvious that this team is worse than last year is just false - at best it's debatable.

But whatever. I'm sure it hurts a lot less when the Blues loses to just act as if they never had a chance.