thedustman
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2013
- 4,200
- 1,246
last year Schwartz and Tarasenko weren't the players they are this year. MPS better be in our lineup for the playoffs though. THroughout this scoring slump, he and Berglund have looked strong
Megalodan
Registered Loser
i think that people are expecting a lot out of a goalie that joined a new team and system at the tail-end of the season. bouwmeester sucked ass last year and now people think he's better than pietrangelo.
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,911
- 14,888
Megalodan
Registered Loser
People did last year, and were sour about the trade. Wanted a better defenseman than Jay Bouwmeester. Now people love him, and I'm even getting challenged about what can actually be searched for on this forum (it's in the Kings CQF GDTs). (edit: sorry if this came off as dickish, the only post i knew offhand was from P9 and i don't think that counts)
ok ok ok i would say that i don't think bouwmeester sucked ass but he didn't click off the bat and people jumped ship on the trade. even pang and kelly had to explain he wasstill developing chemistry with pietrangelo, which was still kind of going on this season.
also, blam!
Last edited:
Oh when the trade was announced some people were mad but that's because there were false stereotypes about him. From the minute he put on a Blues sweater he has played great. I don't think anyone ever thought he "sucked ass" for us. The people that were against the trade admitted they were wrong because he turned out to be a good fit. I seriously don't remember anyone being unhappy with his play at all.
Majorityof1
Registered User
It is very hard to compare lineups from one year to the next. At what point do you compare them? Do you consider them all being healthy and playing well? If you consider them now, do you consider chemistry, which injuries have derailed a bit. I think if you look at our current lineup, if everyone was healthy and playing well, it would be much stronger than last years. I say this as a Perron fan and someone who was upset they traded him. The improvement of Steen, Oshie, Tarasenko, Sobotka and Schwartz overcomes the loss of Perron, Stewart, AMac. They all took large steps up over a majority of the seson.
If you look at pieces in versus pieces out, I think we had net losses. That was really the point though. Internal growth has overcome those losses. The team was trying to create room for people to step up. Stewart didn't. He's gone. Schwartz and Frank did. Unfortunately, none of the guys are playing like they have when at their best throughout the year. This makes our current lineup look worse at the moment than it could be. Hopefully it can live up to its potential before the end of the year.
Finally, kudos to HooliganX2 for post #23 of this thread (too lazy to quote it). I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote there. I am new to this board. I joined at the trade deadline. I am a long times Blues fan, but never joined a message board. Most of you probably haven't noticed my posts at all, and those that have probably think I am in the negative camp. However, I like to think of myself as a realist. I say negative things when their are negative things to say and same with positive. It seems negative now because we are in a major funk.
There seems to be a group of super positive people who are blindly optimistic about the team until the season ends when I assume they will be blindly optimistic about next year. Then there are super negative ones who see any hiccup as a sign the year is a lost cause. Both groups tend to get annoyed when someone says something that's opposite of their viewpoint. We are all here to discuss our favorite team. I'd hope we can all be able to be objective enough to see when we are struggling and when they are playing well. We should be able to discuss the problems or successes without worrying that we are annoying someone with our opinion. At least, that is how I see it. There are others who seem to agree with me, which I am glad to see.
If you look at pieces in versus pieces out, I think we had net losses. That was really the point though. Internal growth has overcome those losses. The team was trying to create room for people to step up. Stewart didn't. He's gone. Schwartz and Frank did. Unfortunately, none of the guys are playing like they have when at their best throughout the year. This makes our current lineup look worse at the moment than it could be. Hopefully it can live up to its potential before the end of the year.
Finally, kudos to HooliganX2 for post #23 of this thread (too lazy to quote it). I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote there. I am new to this board. I joined at the trade deadline. I am a long times Blues fan, but never joined a message board. Most of you probably haven't noticed my posts at all, and those that have probably think I am in the negative camp. However, I like to think of myself as a realist. I say negative things when their are negative things to say and same with positive. It seems negative now because we are in a major funk.
There seems to be a group of super positive people who are blindly optimistic about the team until the season ends when I assume they will be blindly optimistic about next year. Then there are super negative ones who see any hiccup as a sign the year is a lost cause. Both groups tend to get annoyed when someone says something that's opposite of their viewpoint. We are all here to discuss our favorite team. I'd hope we can all be able to be objective enough to see when we are struggling and when they are playing well. We should be able to discuss the problems or successes without worrying that we are annoying someone with our opinion. At least, that is how I see it. There are others who seem to agree with me, which I am glad to see.
Last edited:
Megalodan
Registered Loser
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Can you really blame him? Scoring always seems to be an issue come playoff time for us. Always.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,911
- 14,888
Well it was reported that we showed interest in Spezza, but they probably wanted Stewart+Jaskin/Rattie+ and we were likely one of the 6 teams who made an offer for Kesler, so it's not like Army ignored the need for a center.
Daley Tarasenkshow
Schennsational
Miller is for sure an elite goalie. We all saw that when he arrived and this team went like 9-0-1 when he first came. It was clear we could win big with him In net.
The issue has been the scoring and lack of motivation, not miller or the defense. People who think miller isn't a stud goalie makes no sense to me.
It's not like this team would be any better with a Vanek or spezza or Kesler. I mean then this team wouldn't have much goaltending. Defense wins championships and getting miller helps that cause.
The issue has been the scoring and lack of motivation, not miller or the defense. People who think miller isn't a stud goalie makes no sense to me.
It's not like this team would be any better with a Vanek or spezza or Kesler. I mean then this team wouldn't have much goaltending. Defense wins championships and getting miller helps that cause.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Miller is a very good goalie. Is he good enough to justify what we gave up for him? We won't know that until the playoffs. Spezza, Kesler or Vanek would absolutely make this team better. Especially Vanek, with how cheap he was traded for. We're built on defense but if you can't score you won't win. We lost last year because we couldn't score, not because we couldn't keep the puck out of our own net. And now we've seen a very concerning lack of offense the last month or so.
Daley Tarasenkshow
Schennsational
I agree.
But would Vanek/Kesler/Spezza be Better with Halak and Stewart or is It better with Miller and Ott?
It's a tough question.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Personally, trading for Vanek and running with Halak/Elliott would have been my preferred route. I admit that Miller is better, but I don't think he's enough of an upgrade for it to have been worth what we gave up. I believe we are good enough defensively to win with Elliott or Halak. Vanek solved an immediate need, which was scoring. I know I've been clamoring for a center, but Vanek went for so cheap that I can't understand why we weren't in on him.
Dbrownss
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2014
- 31,359
- 8,734
I honestly think no one expected that. No one came to the auction because the reserve was to high. Then NYI panic and took what offer was out there. Spezza and Kesler I would assume we're simply to expensive. I give army the benefit of the doubt....no one was truly available to fit our needs. Gabrorik maybe, But that's a gamble with injures.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
If Armstrong didn't at least kick the tires on Vanek because he thought the reserve was too high then he made a mistake. You lose nothing by kicking the tires. Worst case scenario the price is too high and you walk away. But you could get lucky. You won't know unless you at least try.
Dbrownss
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2014
- 31,359
- 8,734
That's true. But with tarasenko filling the right wing, we didn't need him till the obvious injury set back. I don't watch Vanek but I was always under the impression he was a consistent scoring Chris Stewart. Doesn't do much for defense, if that's true, I can see the lack of desire for him on the bottom 6
Majorityof1
Registered User
I read an article that said Vancouver and Kesler caused the low price of players at the deadline. I don't remember where, so sorry I can't link it. The theory was that most people wanted Kesler as he is a center, younger, and with a year on his contract. All those teams had offers in and assets committed. Lots of teams thought they had a chance. Vancouver wasn't sure they wanted to trade yet. The teams in the running didn't want to commit those assets elsewhere and lose out on Kesler. When Vancouver finally said no to everyone and decided to keep him, the other teams had already panicked and made moves for low draft picks to get something. As was said, the Blues were probably in the Kesler discussion so are scarce trade assets were probably committed there..
Besides nobody was excited about Vanek because he came out and said he's testing free agency. Besides everyone thinks Minnesota has a leg up. So the team that traded for him wouldn't have a leg up to resign him. He'd be a true rental. We have hope of resigning Miller and Kesler would be under contract for another year. Vanek is gone or getting paid $7+ next year.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
We're good enough that we could shelter him with good defensive forwards and shuffle things around. It certainly would have allowed us to have a more dangerous third line.
Daley Tarasenkshow
Schennsational
Vanek was dumped for so cheap because it was right before the deadline and NYI wanted to get something while the could before he left as a UFA.
I doubt we would have acquired Vanek. Kesler and Spezza were more likely.
I doubt we would have acquired Vanek. Kesler and Spezza were more likely.
Armstrong may have checked into it. I remember in the week leading up to the TDL, that NYI had turned down a very good offer because snow wanted to wait. Who knows what was offered and how it compared to Miller. For playoff reasons - adding a center was more important then adding Vanek. At the time we made a move for Ott - the asking spice was likely much higher. And after we pick up Ott/Miller - there is NO WAY to move additional picks for Vanek.
To me it is simply this: I think Armstrong overpaid for Miller and Ott - but he also made the first move. That is the problem with making the first move, but the other side of the coin is: you may wind up not getting your guy
I would prefer to add a solid Center (Ott - the only other center that was moved was Legwand) and a upgrade in net - then Vanek. I guess I view it as adding two pieces that are needed then a luxury. Keep in mind that up to VT's injury the team was scoring at a high clip. There is no way to see the future or guess that VT would be out or miss time with an injury. The PP was clicking and dangerous. Now it is not so much.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
I was saying I think we should have been in on Vanek rather than Miller or Ott. I just didn't see Miller as enough of an upgrade to justify what we gave up. But the true determination of that can't be made until we see how the playoffs go. I realize that every situation is fluid, which is why the GM needs to make it known that he's still interested. Keep in mind, we were out on Bouwmeester until all of the sudden we weren't. I know that was a special situation, but it's a perfect example of keeping the lines of communication open.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,911
- 14,888
My assumption with the Vanek situation was the price was very high around the time we went for Miller, so that's why we chose Miller. Army showed strong interest in Vanek before he was traded to New York, so I'm sure he was still interested.
Since we went for Miller well before the deadline, it kind of limited our options and we had to dump Roy to make any deal work. That's why I think there were Roy rumors. New York probably didn't want to take any salary dumps and we couldn't find any takers for Roy, meaning we couldn't make a deal for Vanek.
Schwartz-Backes-Oshie
Vanek-Steen-Tarasenko
Berglund-Sobotka-Paajarvi/Morrow
Ott/Morrow-Lapierre-Reaves
That would be the ideal lineup. I also think the above situation would've been the same for Spezza and Kesler and that's why there were Roy rumors. Army wasn't planning on dumping Roy just to dump him.
Since we went for Miller well before the deadline, it kind of limited our options and we had to dump Roy to make any deal work. That's why I think there were Roy rumors. New York probably didn't want to take any salary dumps and we couldn't find any takers for Roy, meaning we couldn't make a deal for Vanek.
Schwartz-Backes-Oshie
Vanek-Steen-Tarasenko
Berglund-Sobotka-Paajarvi/Morrow
Ott/Morrow-Lapierre-Reaves
That would be the ideal lineup. I also think the above situation would've been the same for Spezza and Kesler and that's why there were Roy rumors. Army wasn't planning on dumping Roy just to dump him.
