GDT: Defending Stanley Cup Champs St. Louis Blues vs. Chicago |The Rivalry Continues|

[mk80]

Glad we got the win in that wild game!

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think there were some of both.

Can you give an example where the trading team dictated who Vegas would draft? I don’t think it happened.

 

[execwrite1]

Start with a core group of young vets (Schwartz, Schenn, Tarasenko, O'Reilly), add a strong mix of up and coming young players (Sanford, Sundqvist, Barbashev, MacEachern, Blais), complement with a veteran squad of proven NHLers (Steen, Bozak, Perron) and spice with two future star players (Thomas and Kyrou) and you have an incredible elite forward corps that Doug Armstrong has brilliantly assembled.

We are living in the Golden Age of the St. Louis Blues. Thanks in large part to the great ownership group of Tom Stillman and his investors.

 

[MissouriMook]

There was a group effort failure on the Saad goal, and Faulk was one that carries some burden on that one...

Please help me understand this POV. That goal happened right in front of me (and I just confirmed by video) and he was the only one of five Blues players to do their job on that play. Scandella failed to block the outlet at the other post, Sunny and Barbie allowed Saad inside them with no jam and no attempt to even touch his stick, and Binny didn't stop the shot. Please explain to me the "burden" he carries on that goal.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Please help me understand this POV. That goal happened right in front of me (and I just confirmed by video) and he was the only one of five Blues players to do their job on that play. Scandella failed to block the outlet at the other post, Sunny and Barbie allowed Saad inside them with no jam and no attempt to even touch his stick, and Binny didn't stop the shot. Please explain to me the "burden" he carries on that goal.

Faulk or Barbie had to pick Saad up on the weakside help, but they didn't communicate it. It's not Faulk's fault, but no one is blameless on that goal. Stuff like that will happen though, so it's not even a big deal. Faulk had a fine game and scored a big goal.

 

[MissouriMook]

Faulk or Barbie had to pick Saad up on the weakside help, but they didn't communicate it. It's not Faulk's fault, but no one is blameless on that goal. Stuff like that will happen though, so it's not even a big deal. Faulk had a fine game and scored a big goal.

Either I'm not seeing the same thing you're seeing or I just don't know enough about the PK strategy in that situation. I see Faulk handing Saad off to Barbie when Strome gets the puck behind the net from Dach so he can defend an outlet to the far side. Both Sunny and Barbie seem far too interested in defending a pass back to the point, or maybe there is miscommunication as to which one of them needs to account for Saad on top of the crease, but to leave him there unengaged is on the forwards as far as I can see. There is just too great a risk that Strome will take the puck out to the slot from the other side to leave that post undefended, which means one of the forwards has to drop down a bit to cover Saad at the net front.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Either I'm not seeing the same thing you're seeing or I just don't know enough about the PK strategy in that situation. I see Faulk handing Saad off to Barbie when Strome gets the puck behind the net from Dach so he can defend an outlet to the far side. Both Sunny and Barbie seem far too interested in defending a pass back to the point, or maybe there is miscommunication as to which one of them needs to account for Saad on top of the crease, but to leave him there unengaged is on the forwards as far as I can see. There is just too great a risk that Strome will take the puck out to the slot from the other side to leave that post undefended, which means one of the forwards has to drop down a bit to cover Saad at the net front.

Sunny is doing his job, he defended the point, and then came down to be Scandella's help on his right. Without knowing the exact strategy of the PK, Saad's man would either be Faulk or Barbie, but to be honest it doesn't really matter here because the fault is with both IMO.

The issue was a communication breakdown. As Strome was moving behind the net, it looked like he was initially going to move it to Boqvist on the half-boards which made Barbie move in that direction. Strome quickly moved back to move it to Saad. That's who created the confusion, and there was likely a lack of communcation between Faulk and Barbie for who needed to pick up Saad. You could also say that Barbie was late to react to Strome spinning back and going to Saad though.

You can do things to try and prevent those goals from happening, but when you are on the PK, players are going to find space and exploit it, you just want to minimize those over a full season. It's not really a big deal or a sign of trouble. Not even close to the biggest breakdown I've seen.

 

[Mike Liut]

Start with a core group of young vets (Schwartz, Schenn, Tarasenko, O'Reilly), add a strong mix of up and coming young players (Sanford, Sundqvist, Barbashev, MacEachern, Blais), complement with a veteran squad of proven NHLers (Steen, Bozak, Perron) and spice with two future star players (Thomas and Kyrou) and you have an incredible elite forward corps that Doug Armstrong has brilliantly assembled.

We are living in the Golden Age of the St. Louis Blues. Thanks in large part to the great ownership group of Tom Stillman and his investors.

Don’t overlook Kostin. He’s going to be a core player who brings size, toughness, scoring and plays with an edge.

 

[RickedEm]

Last night was the first game I've been to this season and well, Thomas and Kyrou are worth the price of admission alone.

 

[Blueston]

Can you give an example where the trading team dictated who Vegas would draft? I don’t think it happened.

This lists several: 2017 NHL Expansion Draft - Wikipedia

 

[bleedblue1223]

This lists several: 2017 NHL Expansion Draft - Wikipedia

Do you remember who Florida was protecting by having Vegas take Marchessault? Seems like a really bad move they did by protecting 4 dmen, and then giving Vegas Marchessault or did they just think Smith's contract was that bad.

 

[Blueston]

Do you remember who Florida was protecting by having Vegas take Marchessault? Seems like a really bad move they did by protecting 4 dmen, and then giving Vegas Marchessault or did they just think Smith's contract was that bad.

The article has list of protected players, but my recollection is Florida wanted to get out from Smith contract. Ended up giving Vega 2/3 of their top line.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The article has list of protected players, but my recollection is Florida wanted to get out from Smith contract. Ended up giving Vega 2/3 of their top line.

Yeah, Florida made a weird decision by protecting 4 dmen with Pysyk and Petrovic, but then also gave up on Smith too early. They at least made up for those dumb moves by signing Dadonov and getting Hoffman.

 

[Brian39]

Faulk 3:55 icetime at PK. 3 goals let at PK. Great job coaching staff. How about use Gunnar at PK instead of our worst defensive dmen. Gunnar had only 1:39 at PK. I understand Pietro and Parayko minutes at PK will increase at playoffs, so they get sheltered icetime at regular season. Try to keep them fresh. But I rather see Gunnar play as much as possible at PK not Faulk. That kid doesnt learn how to defend age of 27.

Just to be clear, you are saying 1 goal against on 1:39 of PK time is an improvement on 2 goals against on 3:55 of PK time?

 

[JoshFromMO]

One of my favorite moments of the game was Sanford blocking a big shot and then dumping Boqvist without even looking at the end.

 

[Robb_K]

For the expansion draft, you can either protect 7F and 3D, or 4D and 4F (along with 1G, obviously). While your point remains that the Blues could entice Seattle to take Faulk, it would almost certainly be at the expense of a forward that they like (Kyrou/Blais/Barby) and/or a high-draft pick; and then you start going down the path of the Panthers and Wild who really did Vegas a solid and gifted them some very nice pieces.

I dunno...if the cost of keeping Sandford, Sundqvist, Scandella, Kyrou & Thomas is losing Faulk & Blais (and maybe a pick too) that seems the way to go, rather than being stuck with Faulk for the duration of his abomination of a contract.

THIS was my point. I think Seattle WOULD make that deal, it would depend upon how high the added draft choice is. I would insist that the added player would be Blais, and the draft choice would be a 3rd Rounder. I think they would accept that, as they might have chosen Faulk anyway, to help meet the cap floor, and get a veteran who can run their power play.

 

[Brian39]

THIS was my point. I think Seattle WOULD make that deal, it would depend upon how high the added draft choice is. I would insist that the added player would be Blais, and the draft choice would be a 3rd Rounder. I think they would accept that, as they might have chosen Faulk anyway, to help meet the cap floor, and get a veteran who can run their power play.

I'd be happy with that (again, assuming we extend Petro). That would make the full Faulk trade tree:

Blues Give:
1 year of Eddy
Bokk
Blais
3rd round pick
7th round pick

Blues Receive:
2 years of Faulk
5th round pick
Not losing any other asset in the expansion draft

Considering some of the potential assets we could lose to Seattle, that is a trade I make every time. I like Blais, but I don't think he will ever be a core piece of our forward group. Looking 2 years out, he is unquestionably behind Tarasenko, ROR, Perron, Schwartz, Schenn, Thomas, and Sunny in terms of importance. He is also extremely likely behind Sanford and Kyrou. I put him behind Kostin and Barby, but that is more up in the air. This analysis excludes Steen and Bozak, who are both UFAs before the expansion draft and not in our plans beyond then. Maybe Schwartz walks next summer, but you are still talking about a guy who is (at the absolute best case scenario) 7th on your forward importance chart and more likely somewhere between 8th and 12th.

 

[Ranksu]

"Faulk 3:55 icetime at PK. 3 goals let at PK. Great job coaching staff."

Can we agree those are your words or are you going to pull a politician's mental gymnastics and claim somehow you didn't say that?

What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from those words? You say Faulk had a lot of PK time(and failed to mention that he was probably our best PKer last night, no real surprise) and then say that the PK let in 3 goals. If it's not Faulk's fault(which it most certainly is not) then what is the point of even bringing him up? Just to bitch some more about him? Which of the two goals that Faulk was on the ice for would Gunnar have made a difference? Neither of them if he was actually playing his position, like Faulk was.

Faulk scored a critical goal, broke up several plays defensively, and was not at fault for any of the goals against and STILL you're bitching about him. I guarantee if you put him in Mikkola's jersey last night we'd be hearing all about the great defensive reads and the bomb from the point. It's just blind hatred and it's f*cking annoying.

Bolded: I literally cracked up. Dude I love you.

 

[MissouriMook]

I'd be happy with that (again, assuming we extend Petro). That would make the full Faulk trade tree:

Blues Give:
1 year of Eddy
Bokk
Blais
3rd round pick
7th round pick

Blues Receive:
2 years of Faulk
Not losing any other asset in the expansion draft

Considering some of the potential assets we could lose to Seattle, that is a trade I make every time. I like Blais, but I don't think he will ever be a core piece of our forward group. Looking 2 years out, he is unquestionably behind Tarasenko, ROR, Perron, Schwartz, Schenn, Thomas, and Sunny in terms of importance. He is also extremely likely behind Sanford and Kyrou. I put him behind Kostin and Barby, but that is more up in the air. This analysis excludes Steen and Bozak, who are both UFAs before the expansion draft and not in our plans beyond then. Maybe Schwartz walks next summer, but you are still talking about a guy who is (at the absolute best case scenario) 7th on your forward importance chart and more likely somewhere between 8th and 12th.

We got a 5th this year in the Faulk deal as well, so that needs to be included as part of the trade tree.

I'm not sure what to think about the situation with Schwartz. I think signing him to an extension this summer and needing to protect him next summer would be bad, but there is a chance that he walks as a UFA for nothing if you don't. My Spidey Senses are tingling on this situation that he could be an out-of-nowhere trade at the draft to acquire a 1st rounder to use on a targeted prospect. That would kill two birds with one stone in freeing up cap space for a Petro deal and getting a premium player in the 2020 draft. Right now Buffalo, Montreal and Minnesota are tracking around the 9-11 pick that I think he could return, and I think you could make a case that any of those three could use him. There is also the opportunity to trade him for a comparably valued LD, but doing so doesn't likely free up any cap space or address the player protection issues for the 2021 Expansion Draft.

 

[ezcreepin]

As someone who was on Team Sanford pretty much from the beginning (I remember going back and watching his Caps and Boston College games when we traded for him... oh to have that kind of free time anymore!), I just feel like I have to say that the amount of rope this board gave him vs Ty Rattie couldn’t have been more different.

People here were very skeptical of Sanford from the beginning, and a lot of the arguments were petty, like “he was basically only a 3rd rounder,” or “we got the wrong prospect.” People had high expectations for what we could get for Shattenkirk after rumors of Drouin and Hall, so Sanford had an uphill battle from the beginning here. It really only got worse with time as people became fixated on what their mental image was of him instead of what he was doing. There was hyper-focus on his mistakes and full dismissal of his successes. The artifacts of that attitude are still with us in the snide little nicknames people have for him. I remember that beautiful set up he had on a Berglund goal, and it devolved into like a full thread about how he reached in to get the puck out of a scrum instead of playing the body. The Sanford hate got pretty hysterical for awhile.

Rattie, on the other hand, scored two goals off his butt and people were ready to hand him a top-6 spot on a platter, despite way fewer successes, and way more mistakes than Sanford ever had. But he scored like 130 points in Portland (where everybody was scoring like 130 points at the time), and we didn’t trade Shattenkirk for him, so people weren’t as ready to dismiss his learning curve.

Sanford has been through a lot, including three coaching changes, a big shoulder injury, the loss of his father, and being pummeled by a teammate in practice. He has found consistency, which is what he always needed to do, but the player he is right now was always what he was building towards, and his flashes indicated as much.

I just think it’s silly to say he got the same benefit of the doubt or was held to the same standard as someone like Rattie by posters here. He *always* had promise, he always had it in him to be this player, people were just introduced to him as the return player from a trade of a fan favorite and their patience level was extremely low.

He’s on pace to be a 50-point player this year. I’m glad that many people are coming around on him, and lord knows the Sanford-bandwagon has plenty of room on it, but trying to rewrite history to make it seem like people were pretty cruel and nasty towards him out of some equally-applied standard of performance for young players is just crazy. A lot of people just straight up didn’t like him, and didn’t need any more reason than that.

I can't speak for others, but I think I fall in the minority of who you just mentioned. Any time a player makes a play that is pretty I'll point it out and give them praise. I try to balance the good and the bad with the player and make my opinions about them on that, whether they are a plus player for me or not. For Sanford, he initially wasn't playing the body much; he'd get bounced off the puck a lot or he was beaten on plays in the corner. He did have really nice plays where he was score from in tight or he would show off his hands or make a pretty pass. He had promise but would disappear after 7 or so games, and for me, even when he was getting points he didn't seem to be controlling a lot. Now, he looks like a totally different player. He's physical, he's making really difficult plays (that toe drag last night holy shit), he's making smart plays while allowing himself to be offensive as well. I'm hoping he keeps it up because The Blues and he will be better off for it.

As for the hate for him when he was drafted, I remember it was discussed whether we would get Vrana or Sanford. We all wanted Vrana and thought there was a real chance Armstrong could make it happen. Instead he went for Sanford, the lesser prospect. It was more disappointment from Armstrong to not get as much out of Shattenkirk as he could, but the return was still fine. That disappointment was redirected wrongfully at Sanford. As for the nicknames, I think they're funny so they dont bother me that much.

 

[Oberyn]

His job there was to stop the outlet on that side of the ice. Saad was left all alone in the slot with two Blues forwards standing behind him, neither of which challenged him physically or even attempted to tie up his stick. The pass to Saad came from the other side of the net, past the other D. So of the five Blues on the ice for that goal, including Binnington who failed to make the stop, you decide to pick on Faulk?

Scandella is covering the pass to Dach, Faulk is alone in front with only one threat to worry about which is Saad. Look at Faulk's stick positioning, what exactly is he covering? The Blues are on the PK so Barbashev and Sundqvist are covering the point men, if they drop that low then the point is wide open and we just saw the Hawks score back to back PP goals due to the points being wide open.

I'm not even trying to hate on Faulk, I think he's looked a lot better since his first 20 games or so, but Faulk is covering a ghost in this scenario.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

I can't speak for others, but I think I fall in the minority of who you just mentioned. Any time a player makes a play that is pretty I'll point it out and give them praise. I try to balance the good and the bad with the player and make my opinions about them on that, whether they are a plus player for me or not. For Sanford, he initially wasn't playing the body much; he'd get bounced off the puck a lot or he was beaten on plays in the corner. He did have really nice plays where he was score from in tight or he would show off his hands or make a pretty pass. He had promise but would disappear after 7 or so games, and for me, even when he was getting points he didn't seem to be controlling a lot. Now, he looks like a totally different player. He's physical, he's making really difficult plays (that toe drag last night holy shit), he's making smart plays while allowing himself to be offensive as well. I'm hoping he keeps it up because The Blues and he will be better off for it.

As for the hate for him when he was drafted, I remember it was discussed whether we would get Vrana or Sanford. We all wanted Vrana and thought there was a real chance Armstrong could make it happen. Instead he went for Sanford, the lesser prospect. It was more disappointment from Armstrong to not get as much out of Shattenkirk as he could, but the return was still fine. That disappointment was redirected wrongfully at Sanford. As for the nicknames, I think they're funny so they dont bother me that much.

Eh, I think the real issue regarding Vrana was that Armstrong was apparently targeting Sanford from the start.

I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but there were comments made from the Capitals GM, after the trade, that Vrana wasn't mentioned in the trade talks that sent Shattenkirk to Washington. All Armstrong wanted was Sanford. I think there were also comments saying that the Washington GM tried to push talks away from Sanford, but Armstrong kept his targets on him. I don't want to seem like I'm exaggerating Armstrong's fixation on Sanford, because there were probably more to the negotiations than that. But at the time the comments came out, it seemed as if Armstrong didn't try for Vrana at all, regardless if he was on the table or not.

 

[Stlblue50]

Yeah it’s pretty obvious Faulk should have covered Sadd. There was no other hawk remotely close to him. Going off memory, it looked like he thought the puck carrier was going to his side of the net.

He’s been playing scared in his own zone and most of his outlet passes are horrible. If he continues to play like this then he should be rotated in/out during the playoffs like Eddy n Bortz were last year.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, Strome was going to Faulk's side initially, but quickly pivoted. That's what caused confusion and a likely communication breakdown.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Eh, I think the real issue regarding Vrana was that Armstrong was apparently targeting Sanford from the start.

I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but there were comments made from the Capitals GM, after the trade, that Vrana wasn't mentioned in the trade talks that sent Shattenkirk to Washington. All Armstrong wanted was Sanford. I think there were also comments saying that the Washington GM tried to push talks away from Sanford, but Armstrong kept his targets on him. I don't want to seem like I'm exaggerating Armstrong's fixation on Sanford, because there were probably more to the negotiations than that. But at the time the comments came out, it seemed as if Armstrong didn't try for Vrana at all, regardless if he was on the table or not.

We heard that about Copley too.