Confirmed with Link: [STL/WSH] Oshie traded for Brouwer, Copley & 3rd

[medkit]

You put words in my mouth because you didn't care to follow the conversation. Addressing that isn't "binary."

If you want to respond to points that I'm not making, or not talk about players that I am in the middle of talking about with others, then perhaps you shouldn't be responding to my post.

Just drop your thoughts in the thread and leave me out of it.

I want to respond to the points you are making. That's why I quoted you. Let me know if I'm quoting anything you didn't actually write.

It was "weak" because it was literally a completely uncontested shot (or, more accurately three attempted shots) at an empty net from one foot out. No goalie or defense to beat.

Sound familiar? As stated above, I think your definition of "weak" is pretty weak. Good goal from where I'm sitting.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I want to respond to the points you are making. That's why I quoted you. Let me know if I'm quoting anything you didn't actually write.



Sound familiar? As stated above, I think your definition of "weak" is pretty weak. Good goal from where I'm sitting.

It's not my definition. It's the definition that was used by those that I responded to originally. I simply used the same language they did so that we were all on the same page, and I used it with you when I thought you were continuing that conversation.

After you made it clear that you were taking what I said out of context (i.e. using a definition that's not my own to argue against me as if that's what I believe), I posted this...which you apparently either missed or misunderstood.

Personally, I think they were all good hockey goals.

I think all of the goals being discussed (Oshie's and Brouwer's) are good hockey goals. People went to the net with the puck, or went to the net and had the puck find them. That's how you score in hockey, and I don't consider it weak in the least.

Again, my response was to those who did consider Oshie's goals "weak", and I was challenging them to consistently apply their own standards. That's not the same thing as claiming their standards for my own. Hence, you're putting words in my mouth when you're claiming that's why I believe.

All of this confusion could have been avoided if you hadn't jumped into the middle of a conversation that you weren't following.

 

[Lord Helix]

Easton put the word "soft" in quotations. Who used the word "weak" first?

As if the game 7 goal isn't already being used as a strawman...

 

[Borderbluesfan]

Well, Brouwer looking good so far with the Blues in the playoffs and Oshie looking good for the Caps. My take is that Oshie's style fits better with the Caps and Brouwer's game as a 3rd liner seems to fit pretty good for the Blues. Could be that Oshie couldn't play Blues style hockey. Perron was another player that couldn't play the way that was expected by the coaches, lol.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Well, Brouwer looking good so far with the Blues in the playoffs and Oshie looking good for the Caps. My take is that Oshie's style fits better with the Caps and Brouwer's game as a 3rd liner seems to fit pretty good for the Blues. Could be that Oshie couldn't play Blues style hockey. Perron was another player that couldn't play the way that was expected by the coaches, lol.

I don't think there's any doubt that Oshie wasn't a great fit for the way the coaching staff wanted to use him, especially in the playoffs. There wasn't a top 9 RW on the roster that they trusted more defensively, so Oshie was pretty much chained to that role even though it was obviously a less than ideal situation for both parties.

I think he could have been a better fit in a different role, but that's a moot point now.

Brouwer's played fairly well defensively for us overall, though there has been a couple of notable lapses that have hurt the Blues badly at key times. The Blues are doing a better job of maximizing his offensive contributions by putting him with Stastny instead of Backes. He's not a good possession player, but he can retrieve pucks and put himself in good spots to get off his shot. Just needs a guy or two on his line who can do most of the possession work and then find ways to get him the puck.

Berglund's ability to perform competently on the Backes line has been a big key to allowing Brouwer to stay with Stastny. He should be getting more credit for his part in making all this work than he's currently getting (which is basically none). Hitchcock trusting Fabbri defensively has been a huge factor as well. Lots of little things coming together to make all this work out well for the Blues.

 

[SteenMachine]

I don't think there's any doubt that Oshie wasn't a great fit for the way the coaching staff wanted to use him, especially in the playoffs. There wasn't a top 9 RW on the roster that they trusted more defensively, so Oshie was pretty much chained to that role even though it was obviously a less than ideal situation for both parties.

I think he could have been a better fit in a different role, but that's a moot point now.

Brouwer's played fairly well defensively for us overall, though there has been a couple of notable lapses that have hurt the Blues badly at key times. The Blues are doing a better job of maximizing his offensive contributions by putting him with Stastny instead of Backes. He's not a good possession player, but he can retrieve pucks and put himself in good spots to get off his shot. Just needs a guy or two on his line who can do most of the possession work and then find ways to get him the puck.

Berglund's ability to perform competently on the Backes line has been a big key to allowing Brouwer to stay with Stastny. He should be getting more credit for his part in making all this work than he's currently getting (which is basically none). Hitchcock trusting Fabbri defensively has been a huge factor as well. Lots of little things coming together to make all this work out well for the Blues.

I mean, no one stopped him from scoring more than he did. I think at a certain point the coaches just have to say well at least we can neutralize an opponent with him all series and have him break even with his weak contributions offensively. Backes was used the same way and now all of a sudden he's the one stealing wins in OT for us. Seems if anything our first liners were only first liners by textbook definitions and not when it came to direct competition. This year it's Statsny and people loathe that he's getting paid top dollar for it.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I mean, no one stopped him from scoring more than he did. I think at a certain point the coaches just have to say well at least we can neutralize an opponent with him all series and have him break even with his weak contributions offensively. Backes was used the same way and now all of a sudden he's the one stealing wins in OT for us. Seems if anything our first liners were only first liners by textbook definitions and not when it came to direct competition. This year it's Statsny and people loathe that he's getting paid top dollar for it.

Asking a line to be your top defensive line (with match-ups and zone starts befitting that role) while also expecting it to be your second best scoring line is a taller task than most here seem to give it credit for being. There's a reason why truly elite offensive players aren't typically used that way even when they are good two-way players, and Backes/Oshie/Steen aren't elite offensive players. Doing everything you can to shut down someone often precludes taking the sort of risks that can generate offense for yourself.

This year the Blues finally have three legitimate lines that can produce offense, and no small part of that is thanks to the dynamic quality that Fabbri provides to whatever line he's on. It's much harder for opposing teams to game plan against/shut down three lines than it is one or two. It doesn't hurt that the Blues also have added Parayko to help fuel the offense from the back end, or that Hitchcock has relaxed some of his more conservative tendencies this year (in terms of positioning, activating the defense, etc.).

A lot of important things have changed from last year. Those changes are benefiting Backes, not to mention the rest of the team, and I think it's fair to say that they would have benefited Oshie as well if he was still here. Maybe he could have taken advantage of that, and maybe not.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't simply expect your talent to succeed if you aren't putting them in positions to succeed. Expectations should vary based on context, and you shouldn't hold things against players that are beyond their control.

 

[Mike Liut]

Asking a line to be your top defensive line (with match-ups and zone starts befitting that role) while also expecting it to be your second best scoring line is a taller task than most here seem to give it credit for being. There's a reason why truly elite offensive players aren't typically used that way even when they are good two-way players, and Backes/Oshie/Steen aren't elite offensive players. Doing everything you can to shut down someone often precludes taking the sort of risks that can generate offense for yourself.

This year the Blues finally have three legitimate lines that can produce offense, and no small part of that is thanks to the dynamic quality that Fabbri provides to whatever line he's on. It's much harder for opposing teams to game plan against/shut down three lines than it is one or two. It doesn't hurt that the Blues also have added Parayko to help fuel the offense from the back end, or that Hitchcock has relaxed some of his more conservative tendencies this year (in terms of positioning, activating the defense, etc.).

A lot of important things have changed from last year. Those changes are benefiting Backes, not to mention the rest of the team, and I think it's fair to say that they would have benefited Oshie as well if he was still here. Maybe he could have taken advantage of that, and maybe not.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't simply expect your talent to succeed if you aren't putting them in positions to succeed. Expectations should vary based on context, and you shouldn't hold things against players that are beyond their control.

I love the way you break things down. Makes it easy to follow.

 

[Brian39]

That's kind of like saying that Shattenkirk is a #1 D because of the points he puts up.

I called Oshie a low-end top line player because I think that's the skill set he has. He's obviously not an elite player, but all his offensive tools are top 6 quality and he can create scoring opportunities both for himself and for others.

IMO, the only offensive tool in Brouwer's toolbox that's top 6 quality is his shot, and he can't even create his own shooting opportunities. He's a poor possession player that doesn't really generate chances for himself or others, and who generally has limited offensive tools. To me, that's a 3rd line player.

Let's say for the sake of argument that we call him a 2nd line player. Does that somehow make it a better trade to you? It doesn't to me. You should never give a clearly better player for a clearly worse one + spare change.

As I mentioned earlier, I agree with your overall conclusion that it wasn't a good trade. I agree that we traded the best player and the other parts we got didn't make up the difference. It wasn't very good asset management and I think we probably could have gotten Brouwer for less.

However, I don't think it was nearly as bad as many people here and I think the difference in quality between Oshie and Brouwer is a smaller gap than you. So yeah, I'd say that does make the trade better. Trading a 1st line player for a 2nd liner+ is objectively better than trading that 1st liner for a 3rd liner+.

Have you ever watched the show Arrested Development? This thread reminds me of the scene where the Mad Money host upgrades the company from 'triple sell' to 'don't buy'. Neither is great, but one is less bad than the other.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The only legitimate reason for why the trade can be rationalized as not a failure is because Brouwer does play a north/south game, where Oshie, along with Perron, tends to get more east/west, especially when he gets in trouble.

That still doesn't mean that Brouwer is better or is having a better overall impact than Oshie did, and it doesn't mean that the trade still wasn't really bad in terms of value.

 

[FirstRoundExit]

Tj Oshie - 9pts in 30 playoff games

Troy Brouwer - 6pts in 10 playoff games

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Tj Oshie - 9pts in 30 playoff games

Troy Brouwer - 6pts in 10 playoff games

You conveniently forgot the 70 other playoff games Brouwer has played.

 

[EastonBlues22]

It's time to move on.