Offseason Changes to the Roster?

[A-Yo1965]

Hey everyone!

It has been a LONG time since I have been here but unfortunately the fortunes for the Blues haven't changed.

Now, I may be seen as nuts for what I am about to say and I know most here will either correct me, praise or call me crazy. I am thinking it will be more of the first and last so here goes.

Three moves:

One - Trade Miller (while we still have him) and Oshie and first rounder to Toronto for Kessel
Two - Ott/Shatt/Berg to the Islanders for Tavares
Three - release Jackman

The Blues need scoring, speed and skill. I think these moves help that while trying to keep an eye on being realistic.

Moving Miller/Oshie to Toronto helps both teams. Olympians involved so no one can b(%%# about one team making off better than the other and the games I saw with Toronto this year, OMGAWD!!! Goaltending was HORRIBLE!

Its good to be back and I hope everyone is doing well!

Miller being traded gives Buffalo another conditional pick and Kessel is comming for Oshie and a #1 that we can't afford to lose? Ott is most likely returning to Buffalo so his value is zero Shatty and Bergie won't happen for Tavi. Jackman released yeah that's not going to happen. Mostlikely Jax retires a Blue. I know Jax is the whipping boy around here but Hawks fans hate him the most so we keep him just for that alone. He's not as bad as everyone thinks he's a solid actually.

On a side not I say we pick up Hiller(ufa) and maybe Moulson if he doesn't re-sign with the wild. I know people get on Bergie but what do expect a guy to do in the playoffs with a dislocated shoulder?

You know, on the goaltending front, I have always liked the Ells/Allen 1-2 punch. Keep that until Allen is the one and Ells is the two so to speak. I don't want Allen to fall into another Bishop situation.

Is it possible to get Stewart back? Yes, I know he is streaky but I like him so much more than Berglund.

Probably wont happen but who knows.

I do think the Blues have the parts to be able to get Kessel. I haven't been an Oshie fan for like a long time and if he could be a part of the deal to get Kessel, I am all for getting that done.

Now for as much of a PITA that Jackman can be for the Hawks, it doesn't matter if the Blues aren't getting past them to play on. I see him as more of a problem than a solution.

[flyingnote38]

You'd think that one of the best GMs in the league could put together a team that could eventually win one playoff series.

And the Miller deal was one gigantic bust that may have mortgaged the future of the organization for two playoff game wins. Is that the definition of "slam dunk"?

The aspect of this discussion that I find most bizarre is people still defending the trade. I mean it's one thing to have differences of opinion at the time. But in hindsight, how can anybody say they would do it again knowing what a colossal bust Miller was. And if your personal whipping boy is the PP, then maybe we should have dealt for a scorer rather than deal a sometime scorer for Ott and a 5% "upgrade" in goal

[cardsfan04]

You'd think that one of the best GMs in the league could put together a team that could eventually win one playoff series.

And the Miller deal was one gigantic bust that may have mortgaged the future of the organization for two playoff game wins. Is that the definition of "slam dunk"?

The aspect of this discussion that I find most bizarre is people still defending the trade. I mean it's one thing to have differences of opinion at the time. But in hindsight, how can anybody say they would do it again knowing what a colossal bust Miller was. And if your personal whipping boy is the PP, then maybe we should have dealt for a scorer rather than deal a sometime scorer for Ott and a 5% "upgrade" in goal

Nobody is defending the results of the trade. Anybody who says they would do it again is saying it with the idea that we don't know the results yet. I thought that was obvious. Nobody is saying they would trade for the same results.

[WaukeeBlues]

You guys are on drugs. If Toronto dealt Kessel to us for anything less than Pietrangelo there would be riots and car fires in the streets of Toronto. He's about the only good thing going for that team. Garth Snow would be violently castrated if he traded Tavares. Why you guys think these players are just "available" for acquisition (at all, much less for "Berglund and a second round pick") is insane to me.

The only way you acquire a potentially high end scoring talent (because the proven high end talent will never be traded at virtually any price (most instances) by their respective teams or at such an exorbitant cost that it's not worth reasonably arguing about. e.g. Ovechkin, Staal, Kessel, Thornton, Stamkos, etc) is to fill a need for the other team or catch one in a rebuilding mode.

That's why I suggested looking to the Oil for RNH or Yakupov (since I think Hall and Eberle are off the table). They need veteran defense, we need someone to score goals. Sounds like a marriage to me.

[A-Yo1965]

You guys are on drugs. If Toronto dealt Kessel to us for anything less than Pietrangelo there would be riots and car fires in the streets of Toronto. He's about the only good thing going for that team. Garth Snow would be violently castrated if he traded Tavares. Why you guys think these players are just "available" for acquisition (at all, much less for "Berglund and a second round pick") is insane to me.

The only way you acquire a potentially high end scoring talent (because the proven high end talent will never be traded at virtually any price (most instances) by their respective teams or at such an exorbitant cost that it's not worth reasonably arguing about. e.g. Ovechkin, Staal, Kessel, Thornton, Stamkos, etc) is to fill a need for the other team or catch one in a rebuilding mode.

That's why I suggested looking to the Oil for RNH or Yakupov (since I think Hall and Eberle are off the table). They need veteran defense, we need someone to score goals. Sounds like a marriage to me.

Waukee, you are right, then the Blues should trade Pietro for him. It's not the Blues D per se that is the issue. It is the lack of scoring. Does it hurt the Blues some yes, but at the same time, Pietro isn't the most concrete player when it comes to being forechecked.

Now I hear what you are saying about dealing with Edmonton but isn't that another crap shoot? Hoping that these guys are going to turn out to score or do we have another Berglund in a Blues jersey.

You have to give to gain right? And I think that Kessel would give the Blues the consistent scoring threat they need and a player that has to be dealt with.

Sakes, him with Schwartz and Tank? That could be scary.

[flyingnote38]

You'd think that one of the best GMs in the league could put together a team that could eventually win one playoff series.

And the Miller deal was one gigantic bust that may have mortgaged the future of the organization for two playoff game wins. Is that the definition of "slam dunk"?

The aspect of this discussion that I find most bizarre is people still defending the trade. I mean it's one thing to have differences of opinion at the time. But in hindsight, how can anybody say they would do it again knowing what a colossal bust Miller was. And if your personal whipping boy is the PP, then maybe we should have dealt for a scorer rather than deal a sometime scorer for Ott and a 5% "upgrade" in goal

Nobody is defending the results of the trade. Anybody who says they would do it again is saying it with the idea that we don't know the results yet. I thought that was obvious. Nobody is saying they would trade for the same results.

so when cprice states that he still thinks its a "slam dunk positive for us" he means only if we pretend that we don't know now what we know now?

[cardsfan04]

You'd think that one of the best GMs in the league could put together a team that could eventually win one playoff series.

And the Miller deal was one gigantic bust that may have mortgaged the future of the organization for two playoff game wins. Is that the definition of "slam dunk"?

The aspect of this discussion that I find most bizarre is people still defending the trade. I mean it's one thing to have differences of opinion at the time. But in hindsight, how can anybody say they would do it again knowing what a colossal bust Miller was. And if your personal whipping boy is the PP, then maybe we should have dealt for a scorer rather than deal a sometime scorer for Ott and a 5% "upgrade" in goal

Nobody is defending the results of the trade. Anybody who says they would do it again is saying it with the idea that we don't know the results yet. I thought that was obvious. Nobody is saying they would trade for the same results.

so when cprice states that he still thinks its a "slam dunk positive for us" he means only if we pretend that we don't know now what we know now?

I'd have to see it in context, but I doubt he's saying, "Thank god for what this trade did for us this season!" But, if we could rewind 8 weeks, I'd still want to make the trade. That doesn't mean I want to make the trade, lose in round 1 and not retain Miller. That's crazy. I think it was a good idea that didn't (or hasn't, maybe he'll be back) work out.

[Oaklandblue]

You'd think that one of the best GMs in the league could put together a team that could eventually win one playoff series.

And the Miller deal was one gigantic bust that may have mortgaged the future of the organization for two playoff game wins. Is that the definition of "slam dunk"?

The aspect of this discussion that I find most bizarre is people still defending the trade. I mean it's one thing to have differences of opinion at the time. But in hindsight, how can anybody say they would do it again knowing what a colossal bust Miller was. And if your personal whipping boy is the PP, then maybe we should have dealt for a scorer rather than deal a sometime scorer for Ott and a 5% "upgrade" in goal

Nobody is defending the results of the trade. Anybody who says they would do it again is saying it with the idea that we don't know the results yet. I thought that was obvious. Nobody is saying they would trade for the same results.

so when cprice states that he still thinks its a "slam dunk positive for us" he means only if we pretend that we don't know now what we know now?

I'd have to see it in context, but I doubt he's saying, "Thank god for what this trade did for us this season!" But, if we could rewind 8 weeks, I'd still want to make the trade. That doesn't mean I want to make the trade, lose in round 1 and not retain Miller. That's crazy. I think it was a good idea that didn't (or hasn't, maybe he'll be back) work out.

I think Cprice is being sarcastic because yes the Miller/Ott trade sucked, but we're losing Halak anyway, we're giving up a pick in a shallow ass draft and his acquistions of Elliott, Tarasenko, Jaybo etc. etc. etc. completely outweight one "stupid" trade. We didn't have room for Bishop because Halak and Elliott AT THE TIME looked like the second coming. He had to go, that was all there is to it.

Overall he's doing good and to me is making the same amount of successes and mistakes as any other solid GM. The big question everyone needs to ask is 1. How much money does he REALLY have to run with. 2. Of the elites we want, how many of them, given our history of flop, flop, flop, want to spend any time playing for the Blues?

I think #2 is the bigger obstacle for us to get over and is what is aiding to it being more difficult for us to get elites.

[glen a richter]

You guys are on drugs. If Toronto dealt Kessel to us for anything less than Pietrangelo there would be riots and car fires in the streets of Toronto. He's about the only good thing going for that team. Garth Snow would be violently castrated if he traded Tavares. Why you guys think these players are just "available" for acquisition (at all, much less for "Berglund and a second round pick") is insane to me.

The only way you acquire a potentially high end scoring talent (because the proven high end talent will never be traded at virtually any price (most instances) by their respective teams or at such an exorbitant cost that it's not worth reasonably arguing about. e.g. Ovechkin, Staal, Kessel, Thornton, Stamkos, etc) is to fill a need for the other team or catch one in a rebuilding mode.

That's why I suggested looking to the Oil for RNH or Yakupov (since I think Hall and Eberle are off the table). They need veteran defense, we need someone to score goals. Sounds like a marriage to me.

Is there a form of castration that wouldn't be violent?

There's no way in the universe that the Islanders trade Tavares. He is the Islanders. Without him, they take 100 steps backwards.

I have repeatedly suggested Ovechkin as a possibility simply because the Caps fans are sour on him and they have all these postseason flameouts (sound familar?) but if they sacked Oates it pretty much means they want a coach who can accommodate Ovechkin rather than trade him. Yakupov I don't want. RNH I'd be interested in, and maybe they can throw in Gagner while they're at it.

[glen a richter]

puck daddy seems to think Miller was fairly bad in the playoffs

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 17694.html

That save percentage in the 4 games we lost is brutal.

I also don't get how people hold Miller blameless for game 3. I get that we got shut out but the goal against was soft. If that goal is unstoppable, then no blame for Miller. But that softie decided the game any way you slice it

Because it was one friggin' goal 5 minutes into the game. For 55 more minutes, he played shutout hockey (minus the empty netter, obviously). The offense had 55 minutes to come up with 1 or 2 goals and they didn't. That's why I don't pin it on him. It was a soft goal, but every goalie in the history of ever has given up a soft goal. The offense didn't show up at all.

Everyone pinned it on Turek every friggin' time he gave up a softie and he got the Blues, last time I checked, further in the playoffs than they'd been since the mid-80's. It's okay to rip Turek who would have won the Cup guaranteed with that team had they not had to play Colorado and get stonewalled by Roy, but Miller is off the hook? Even if he is let off the hook for game 3 which is fair because the offense didn't score, the fact that he flat out shit the bed in game 6 should seal it. He was brought in to be the difference maker, a calming influence, a fundamentally sound goalie and he shit the bed.

[Oaklandblue]

puck daddy seems to think Miller was fairly bad in the playoffs

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 17694.html

That save percentage in the 4 games we lost is brutal.

I also don't get how people hold Miller blameless for game 3. I get that we got shut out but the goal against was soft. If that goal is unstoppable, then no blame for Miller. But that softie decided the game any way you slice it

Because it was one friggin' goal 5 minutes into the game. For 55 more minutes, he played shutout hockey (minus the empty netter, obviously). The offense had 55 minutes to come up with 1 or 2 goals and they didn't. That's why I don't pin it on him. It was a soft goal, but every goalie in the history of ever has given up a soft goal. The offense didn't show up at all.

Everyone pinned it on Turek every friggin' time he gave up a softie and he got the Blues, last time I checked, further in the playoffs than they'd been since the mid-80's. It's okay to rip Turek who would have won the Cup guaranteed with that team had they not had to play Colorado and get stonewalled by Roy, but Miller is off the hook? Even if he is let off the hook for game 3 which is fair because the offense didn't score, the fact that he flat out shit the bed in game 6 should seal it. He was brought in to be the difference maker, a calming influence, a fundamentally sound goalie and he shit the bed.

Turek was as a backup for Dallas who didn't play in the playoffs and got a ring, tho. Did he ever play for a team since Dallas and win a Cup with them? After we let him go, the boy fell off the face of the Earth. We acquired a guy who they SAID was really great and like Halak, we simply got the wrong one of the two. What is worse is that Halak actually played in the playoffs for the Habs and should have been better for us and just didn't get the opportunity and time ran out. Turek at best was a pig in a poke. If he was as good as others said he was, he would have gone far. To be fair he did go far - far, far away and vanished.

[flyingnote38]

I think Cprice is being sarcastic because yes the Miller/Ott trade sucked, but we're losing Halak anyway, we're giving up a pick in a shallow ass draft and his acquistions of Elliott, Tarasenko, Jaybo etc. etc. etc. completely outweight one "stupid" trade.

the pick we traded was our 2015 pick which is a 'deep' draft... we can debate what "a deep draft" means some other time

[gaijin]

If we had stood pat with Halak, and he performed exactly like Miller did in the playoffs, all of us would have been calling to start Elliott instead. We wouldn't have accepted that level of play from either Halak or Elliott; why are we accepting it because of the name Miller? I kept secretly hoping Hitch would start Elliott for Games 5 and 6.

But I understand why. They kept riding Miller so he would steal a game/a series/a Cup for us- the reason he was acquired. He did not. Maybe with a full year with the team to get comfortable. Maybe not. I personally would rather spend his salary on more scoring.

[beat2life]

puck daddy seems to think Miller was fairly bad in the playoffs

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 17694.html

That save percentage in the 4 games we lost is brutal.

I also don't get how people hold Miller blameless for game 3. I get that we got shut out but the goal against was soft. If that goal is unstoppable, then no blame for Miller. But that softie decided the game any way you slice it

Because it was one friggin' goal 5 minutes into the game. For 55 more minutes, he played shutout hockey (minus the empty netter, obviously). The offense had 55 minutes to come up with 1 or 2 goals and they didn't. That's why I don't pin it on him. It was a soft goal, but every goalie in the history of ever has given up a soft goal. The offense didn't show up at all.

and asking him to shut out the Hawks in Chicago in a game they had to win would have been a monumental task.

isn't this exactly why we acquired him? Because we felt Halak couldn't perform this monumental task?

[WaukeeBlues]

You guys are on drugs. If Toronto dealt Kessel to us for anything less than Pietrangelo there would be riots and car fires in the streets of Toronto. He's about the only good thing going for that team. Garth Snow would be violently castrated if he traded Tavares. Why you guys think these players are just "available" for acquisition (at all, much less for "Berglund and a second round pick") is insane to me.

The only way you acquire a potentially high end scoring talent (because the proven high end talent will never be traded at virtually any price (most instances) by their respective teams or at such an exorbitant cost that it's not worth reasonably arguing about. e.g. Ovechkin, Staal, Kessel, Thornton, Stamkos, etc) is to fill a need for the other team or catch one in a rebuilding mode.

That's why I suggested looking to the Oil for RNH or Yakupov (since I think Hall and Eberle are off the table). They need veteran defense, we need someone to score goals. Sounds like a marriage to me.

Is there a form of castration that wouldn't be violent?

There's no way in the universe that the Islanders trade Tavares. He is the Islanders. Without him, they take 100 steps backwards.

I have repeatedly suggested Ovechkin as a possibility simply because the Caps fans are sour on him and they have all these postseason flameouts (sound familar?) but if they sacked Oates it pretty much means they want a coach who can accommodate Ovechkin rather than trade him. Yakupov I don't want. RNH I'd be interested in, and maybe they can throw in Gagner while they're at it.

I think you'd more likely see the Capitals trade literally every other player on their roster, at the same time, other than Ovechkin before they would trade Ovechkin himself.

More than once I've also heard some people say "well Gretzky got traded" well yea but a large part of that reason was because of financial issues that don't permeate today's NHL. Kessel himself was only dealt by the Bruins because they couldn't get a deal done. Stamkos, Ovechkin, Staal, Tavares.... all have long-term deals in place, are the faces of their franchises, etc. IMO, none of them are going anywhere.

[cardsfan04]

You guys are on drugs. If Toronto dealt Kessel to us for anything less than Pietrangelo there would be riots and car fires in the streets of Toronto. He's about the only good thing going for that team. Garth Snow would be violently castrated if he traded Tavares. Why you guys think these players are just "available" for acquisition (at all, much less for "Berglund and a second round pick") is insane to me.

The only way you acquire a potentially high end scoring talent (because the proven high end talent will never be traded at virtually any price (most instances) by their respective teams or at such an exorbitant cost that it's not worth reasonably arguing about. e.g. Ovechkin, Staal, Kessel, Thornton, Stamkos, etc) is to fill a need for the other team or catch one in a rebuilding mode.

That's why I suggested looking to the Oil for RNH or Yakupov (since I think Hall and Eberle are off the table). They need veteran defense, we need someone to score goals. Sounds like a marriage to me.

Is there a form of castration that wouldn't be violent?

There's no way in the universe that the Islanders trade Tavares. He is the Islanders. Without him, they take 100 steps backwards.

I have repeatedly suggested Ovechkin as a possibility simply because the Caps fans are sour on him and they have all these postseason flameouts (sound familar?) but if they sacked Oates it pretty much means they want a coach who can accommodate Ovechkin rather than trade him. Yakupov I don't want. RNH I'd be interested in, and maybe they can throw in Gagner while they're at it.

I think you'd more likely see the Capitals trade literally every other player on their roster, at the same time, other than Ovechkin before they would trade Ovechkin himself.

More than once I've also heard some people say "well Gretzky got traded" well yea but a large part of that reason was because of financial issues that don't permeate today's NHL. Kessel himself was only dealt by the Bruins because they couldn't get a deal done. Stamkos, Ovechkin, Staal, Tavares.... all have long-term deals in place, are the faces of their franchises, etc. IMO, none of them are going anywhere.

Agreed. A lot of guys we want aren't to be had via trade. And, if they were, they'd cost a boatload in return which would deplete our minor league system and future draft picks.

The way to get somebody is to sign him IMO. There are a few FAs that could be difference makers here. I don't currently have much of a preference of one over another, but there are a handful of them that I'd be happy with. Hopefully spending to the cap isn't a 1 time thing for this ownership group. If they are willing to at least not drop payroll I think we have room to get an impact player.

[cardsfan04]

The Miller quotes on Twitter are kind of hard to interpret. A day or two ago he spoke about his time in STL in the past tense. Then, I saw this one a minute ago:

[tweet][/tweet]

That doesn't sound like somebody on his way out the door. I have no idea what to make of either one. I probably shouldn't try to read much into either one though.

[A-Yo1965]

Well at least the Blues aint the Sharks. 3-0 and then escourted out. Whoa...Now THATS a team that should be looking to get rid of ALOT of players.

[cprice12]

You'd think that one of the best GMs in the league could put together a team that could eventually win one playoff series.

And the Miller deal was one gigantic bust that may have mortgaged the future of the organization for two playoff game wins. Is that the definition of "slam dunk"?

The aspect of this discussion that I find most bizarre is people still defending the trade. I mean it's one thing to have differences of opinion at the time. But in hindsight, how can anybody say they would do it again knowing what a colossal bust Miller was. And if your personal whipping boy is the PP, then maybe we should have dealt for a scorer rather than deal a sometime scorer for Ott and a 5% "upgrade" in goal

How was Miller a colossal bust? Explain that to me.

Miller was more than a 5% upgrade in goal.

[cprice12]

Armstrong has brought in key members of the organization including 2012 Jack Adams winner Ken Hitchcock and 2012 Jennings Trophy winners Brian Elliott and Jaroslav Halak.

Armstrong has also orchestrated the additions of Chris Stewart, Kevin Shattenkirk and Jay Bouwmeester, as well as the drafts of Dmitrij Jaskin, Jaden Schwartz and Vladimir Tarasenko.

Armstrong and Yzerman are currently the only two General Managers in the NHL that are members of the “Triple Gold Club”, having been on the management staff for a Stanley Cup, Olympic gold medal and World Championship gold medal.

That profile is from the Blues official site, and it's only part of it...and it's a bit outdated as it doesn't include the Miller deal...which I still think was a slam dunk positive for us.

He is one of the best GM's in the NHL...if not THE best. I am pretty dumbfounded that some of you want him gone.

You'd think that one of the best GMs in the league could put together a team that could eventually win one playoff series.

And the Miller deal was one gigantic bust that may have mortgaged the future of the organization for two playoff game wins. Is that the definition of "slam dunk"?

Armstrong can't go out on the ice and score goals for them. This team was/is an excellent team. They just didn't get it done against the defending cup champs...whom many are picking to win it again.

The Miller trade was not a gigantic bust...unless somehow Miller was responsible for the team getting shut out in game #3 and going 0-6 on the PP in game #6.
If we have any offense at all in game #3, we are up 3-0 and we win the series. No doubt in my mind.
The vast majority of the blame for the series loss is pinned on the fact that this team couldn't score enough times when it needed to in the playoffs. Yes, Miller could have been better in a couple of the games and it would have been great if he could have tossed a shutout and stolen a game for us, but he is in no way shape or form the reason we lost the series.