Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or anything hockey.

Moderator: LGB Mods

Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby kodos » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:20 pm

In hindsight I have no idea what the (Frank) the Blues were thinking signing Shanahan as a RFA when they didn't have the draft picks they were contractually required to turn over for having signed him.

We always get pissed at the Devils or the league, but seriously... why the hell did they do that? We're the retarded or what? What were they expecting to happen?

Everyone always gets enraged at the Devils, but in reality I would blame the Blues management team more than anyone else.

I was a devoted fan back then but not like now. Can someone who was paying more attention at the time give me some more insight into this whole mess?

Has anything like this happened in hockey since then (or before)? Hell, has anything like this happened in another league? The whole thing just seems so weird and unprecedented.

Why didn't the league just void out the contract?
Image
User avatar
kodos
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:05 pm

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby Winning Unlimited » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:00 pm

We didn't have a great leader like Bettman to keep the Blues from attempting to improve.
Official 2014-15 LGB Sponsor of David Backes
User avatar
Winning Unlimited
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 3754
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: StL/CoMo

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby Carl Racki » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:12 pm

I may be talkin out o fmy a$$, but it seems the two deals, the one Stevens signed the year before, and the one Shanny signed, were different, either in dollars or years...because of that difference, and due to the CBA at the time, they could work out a deal with players rather than the Devils just being awarded draft picks liket he Caps were. That is the way I remember it, anyway...

I just wish to Christ we would have been able to keep Stevens...the guy was an absolute psycho animal, and I loved watching him play.
Carl Racki
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:48 pm
Location: bfe

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby theohall » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:05 am

I'm pretty sure the Devils were "awarded" Stevens for the Shanahan signing, because he was considered equivalent to five first-round draft picks. What ticks me off more is when the Blues tampered with Stevens trying to get him back forcing them to surrender yet more draft picks. Simply due to Blues mis-management, the Blues lost 7 1st round picks solely for Scott Stevens, who only wore the Bluenote for 1 year.

Like Stevens the year before, Shanahan was a restricted free agent, and thus the Devils were entitled to compensation. As per the collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time, this ordinarily would have been five first-round draft picks; however, the Blues had already given up these picks to the Washington Capitals for signing Stevens and still owed four to the Capitals. As such, other compensation had to be negotiated, and the Blues and Devils could not agree on what the compensation was; the Blues offered goalie Curtis Joseph, forward Rod Brind'Amour, and two draft picks, but the Devils wanted Stevens.[14] The case went to arbitration, and a judge ruled that he was to be awarded to the Devils in September 1991.[
(FRANK) the Kings!!!!
User avatar
theohall
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 3674
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby cprice12 » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:48 pm

I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.
Image
Image

2014-2015 Sponsor -- Blues Asst. Coach Kirk Muller
User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19702
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby glen a richter » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:30 pm

Maybe in an alternate universe.
LGB sponsor of Ian Cole 2011-2012
LGB sponsor of Gary Bettman's Pink Slip 2013
LGB sponsor of Dmitrij Jaskin 2013-2014
LGB sponsor of Ian Cole (again) 2014-2015
glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 7532
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby WaukeeBlues » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:21 am

cprice12 wrote:I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.


It's just punitive damages for screwing with another team that, in principle, should have every full and fair opportunity to get their guy signed without the intereference of other teams.
Image
User avatar
WaukeeBlues
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Phi Alpha

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby JWatt (formerly PMS) » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:08 pm

WaukeeBlues wrote:
cprice12 wrote:I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.


It's just punitive damages for screwing with another team that, in principle, should have every full and fair opportunity to get their guy signed without the intereference of other teams.


Agreed. Who said Washington was considering not resigning Stevens? They just weren't going to pay him as much money as we offered. Do you think that Buffalo wanted to pay Vanek $50MM over 7 years? No, they would have probably signed him to a 4 year deal worth $16-20MM. Now, because of the Oilers driving up the cost of retaining their own players, they had to drastically overpay him or lose him for draft picks. In hindsight, the should have taken the draft picks which would have included Sam Gagne, Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson, Taylor Hall, and probably another top 5 pick, but they were coming off a President's trophy winning season and a trip to the Conference finals. They also lost Briere and Drury the same offseason, so losing Vanek would have further crippled their team.

The Vanek offersheet is the reason that tons of guys are now making $5+MM/yr coming out of their ELCs. Restricted free agents no longer have any measure of cost control. It used to be that players didn't make the big bucks until they were UFAs.
JWatt (formerly PMS)
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:50 am
Location: Saint Charles, MO

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby cprice12 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:08 pm

WaukeeBlues wrote:
cprice12 wrote:I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.


It's just punitive damages for screwing with another team that, in principle, should have every full and fair opportunity to get their guy signed without the intereference of other teams.


Not sure I follow.
The Blues weren't "screwing" with anyone. It is perfectly within the rules to sign a RFA.
Washington and NJ had every opportunity to sign Stevens and Shanahan before they became a RFA...but they couldn't or wouldn't, and they in turn became a RFA and fair game to sign.
Image
Image

2014-2015 Sponsor -- Blues Asst. Coach Kirk Muller
User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19702
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby cprice12 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:10 pm

JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
WaukeeBlues wrote:
cprice12 wrote:I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.


It's just punitive damages for screwing with another team that, in principle, should have every full and fair opportunity to get their guy signed without the intereference of other teams.


Agreed. Who said Washington was considering not resigning Stevens? They just weren't going to pay him as much money as we offered. Do you think that Buffalo wanted to pay Vanek $50MM over 7 years? No, they would have probably signed him to a 4 year deal worth $16-20MM. Now, because of the Oilers driving up the cost of retaining their own players, they had to drastically overpay him or lose him for draft picks. In hindsight, the should have taken the draft picks which would have included Sam Gagne, Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson, Taylor Hall, and probably another top 5 pick, but they were coming off a President's trophy winning season and a trip to the Conference finals. They also lost Briere and Drury the same offseason, so losing Vanek would have further crippled their team.

The Vanek offersheet is the reason that tons of guys are now making $5+MM/yr coming out of their ELCs. Restricted free agents no longer have any measure of cost control. It used to be that players didn't make the big bucks until they were UFAs.


Then teams should sign players before they become RFA's. Then they wouldn't have to deal with other teams tossing high offers sheets at them.
Image
Image

2014-2015 Sponsor -- Blues Asst. Coach Kirk Muller
User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19702
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby JWatt (formerly PMS) » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:10 pm

cprice12 wrote:
WaukeeBlues wrote:
cprice12 wrote:I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.


It's just punitive damages for screwing with another team that, in principle, should have every full and fair opportunity to get their guy signed without the intereference of other teams.


Not sure I follow.
The Blues weren't "screwing" with anyone. It is perfectly within the rules to sign a RFA.
Washington and NJ had every opportunity to sign Stevens and Shanahan before they became a RFA...but they couldn't or wouldn't, and they in turn became a RFA and fair game to sign.


Just you wait until some big market team comes in and tries to poach EJ with a 15 year deal (assuming he only signs a short term deal) and then you'll be singing a different tune.

Besides, why would a soon to be RFA sign before hitting free agency when he knows a big offer sheet is coming his way. That's one of my problems with the Backes offer sheet. Gillis (who was an agent before he was hired as the VAN GM) told Backes he was going to throw him an offer sheet before he accepted the GM position. Backes had no interest in negotiating with the Blues before July 1st and immediately signed the offer sheet with Vancouver right after free agency began.
JWatt (formerly PMS)
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:50 am
Location: Saint Charles, MO

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby cprice12 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:15 pm

JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
cprice12 wrote:
WaukeeBlues wrote:
cprice12 wrote:I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.


It's just punitive damages for screwing with another team that, in principle, should have every full and fair opportunity to get their guy signed without the intereference of other teams.


Not sure I follow.
The Blues weren't "screwing" with anyone. It is perfectly within the rules to sign a RFA.
Washington and NJ had every opportunity to sign Stevens and Shanahan before they became a RFA...but they couldn't or wouldn't, and they in turn became a RFA and fair game to sign.


Just you wait until some big market team comes in and tries to poach EJ with a 15 year deal (assuming he only signs a short term deal) and then you'll be singing a different tune.


I'll be upset, but not at the team who offered the long contract. If you don't want a player to become a RFA, then don't let him become one. Don't be stingy and sign him early. And if the player doesn't want to sign and wants to become a RFA, is offered a huge long term contract, and signs that contract, then that's the way it is...and you probably don't want that player anyway...hell, you probably should have traded that player last year if you foresaw that coming.
Image
Image

2014-2015 Sponsor -- Blues Asst. Coach Kirk Muller
User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19702
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby JWatt (formerly PMS) » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:20 pm

cprice12 wrote:Then teams should sign players before they become RFA's. Then they wouldn't have to deal with other teams tossing high offers sheets at them.


That's why Kopitar is now making $6.8MM/yr, Stastny is making $6.6MM/yr, and Eric Stall is making $8.25MM/yr. We better hope that some of our guys don't pan out because otherwise we won't be able to afford them all and will have to break up the team and rebuild again.
JWatt (formerly PMS)
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:50 am
Location: Saint Charles, MO

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby TSUCookieMonster » Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:58 pm

I've been a Blues fan for as long as I can remember, but would someone please refer me to a timeline or something with the Steven's incident? I'm still sketch about what the hell happened...
Image

[Dooger] 11:53 pm: Thank God you're here! Some Wings fans were in here trying to have sex with me.
User avatar
TSUCookieMonster
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:21 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby ViPeRx007 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:02 pm

JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
cprice12 wrote:Then teams should sign players before they become RFA's. Then they wouldn't have to deal with other teams tossing high offers sheets at them.


That's why Kopitar is now making $6.8MM/yr, Stastny is making $6.6MM/yr, and Eric Stall is making $8.25MM/yr. We better hope that some of our guys don't pan out because otherwise we won't be able to afford them all and will have to break up the team and rebuild again.


Rebuild again?! We have yet to build in the first place!

:melt:
Image
2014-2015 Official LGB Sponsor of T.J. Oshie
2013-2014 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Ryan Reaves
2011-2012 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
User avatar
ViPeRx007
LGB Booster - Yellow
LGB Booster - Yellow
 
Posts: 9616
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Billings, MT

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby Portland Blues » Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:11 pm

ViPeRx007 wrote:
JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
cprice12 wrote:Then teams should sign players before they become RFA's. Then they wouldn't have to deal with other teams tossing high offers sheets at them.


That's why Kopitar is now making $6.8MM/yr, Stastny is making $6.6MM/yr, and Eric Stall is making $8.25MM/yr. We better hope that some of our guys don't pan out because otherwise we won't be able to afford them all and will have to break up the team and rebuild again.


Rebuild again?! We have yet to build in the first place!

:melt:


Hey! We won the damn Presidents' Trophy once!

:letsgoblues: :lol:
User avatar
Portland Blues
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 3044
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 12:38 pm
Location: Portland Orygun

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby WaukeeBlues » Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:09 pm

cprice12 wrote:
WaukeeBlues wrote:
cprice12 wrote:I've always thought five first round picks was a ridiculous standard for signing a type-whatever RFA.

In what universe is five first rounders fair compensation for signing a player that his last team was considering not resigning anyway?

Stupid.


It's just punitive damages for screwing with another team that, in principle, should have every full and fair opportunity to get their guy signed without the intereference of other teams.


Not sure I follow.
The Blues weren't "screwing" with anyone. It is perfectly within the rules to sign a RFA.
Washington and NJ had every opportunity to sign Stevens and Shanahan before they became a RFA...but they couldn't or wouldn't, and they in turn became a RFA and fair game to sign.


I was just pointing out why the compensation was so high- it's a philosophical stance, not necessarily what the player is or is not worth.

To a point I agree with you. I'm already uncomfortable with how long the Blues are taking to re-sign EJ. And if players really do "hold out" so to speak to hope that a another team actually throws them an offer sheet, that's just sh*tty. I have no recommendations on how to change that- all I know is that the 5 draft picks thing is just to dissuade teams from throwing out offers and obstructing the RFA process.
Image
User avatar
WaukeeBlues
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Phi Alpha

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby glen a richter » Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:21 pm

Portland Blues wrote:
ViPeRx007 wrote:
JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
cprice12 wrote:Then teams should sign players before they become RFA's. Then they wouldn't have to deal with other teams tossing high offers sheets at them.


That's why Kopitar is now making $6.8MM/yr, Stastny is making $6.6MM/yr, and Eric Stall is making $8.25MM/yr. We better hope that some of our guys don't pan out because otherwise we won't be able to afford them all and will have to break up the team and rebuild again.


Rebuild again?! We have yet to build in the first place!

:melt:


Hey! We won the damn Presidents' Trophy once!

:letsgoblues: :lol:


that was before the rebuild though.

This team is so epically cursed. We're worse than the Cubs. At least those guys won a world series once.
LGB sponsor of Ian Cole 2011-2012
LGB sponsor of Gary Bettman's Pink Slip 2013
LGB sponsor of Dmitrij Jaskin 2013-2014
LGB sponsor of Ian Cole (again) 2014-2015
glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 7532
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby fargoblues » Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:55 pm

HOCKEY; Arbitrator Sends Stevens To Devils for Shanahan
By ALEX YANNIS
Published: September 4, 1991

Not a single puck has been dropped yet, but the Devils are already big winners in the National Hockey League as a result of an arbitrator's decision.

Judge Edward Houston sent shock waves through the hockey world yesterday by awarding Scott Stevens to the Devils as compensation from St. Louis for the loss of Brendan Shanahan, who had signed with the Blues as a free agent.

The judge's decision to award one of the league's premier defensemen as compensation for Shanahan may have a large impact on free agency in the league. Teams will now have second thoughts about signing free agents with compensation for fear of losing someone better if the case goes to arbitration.

The decision apparently didn't spread much fear among the Rangers, who signed Edmonton's Adam Graves as a free agent with compensation in a move that is not expected to go to arbitration. 'I'm Just Delighted'

Judge Houston, of the Ontario Court of Justice, is the league's only arbitrator for disputes involving the signing of free agents with compensation. When he notified the teams of his decision from his Ottawa office in mid-afternoon yesterday, the Devils were celebrating and the Blues were mourning.

"I'm delighted about the decision," said Lou Lamoriello, the president of the Devils, who had submitted to Houston that Stevens should be the compensation for Shanahan. The Blues had submitted a package of lesser players. "I'm just delighted to have Scott Stevens at our blue line," Lamoriello said. "His record speaks for itself."

The sentiments of the Blues were well conveyed last night by Mike Caruso, a team spokesman who said, "We've got a 22-year-old prospect in Shanahan and we lost our captain." Stevens, who is in Toronto for the Canada Cup, was not taking any telephone calls at his hotel.

The 27-year-old Stevens played eight seasons with the Capitals and was signed as a free agent by the Blues last summer for five first-round selections in the draft. His physical presence makes him effective defensively and offensively. He is regarded so highly in the league that the Blues made him captain in his first season with the team.

Shanahan, a forward, had also been pursued by the Rangers, but Neil Smith, the Rangers' general manager, decided against signing Shanahan for fear of losing one of his more talented players, like Brian Leetch or James Patrick, to the Devils.

Smith's fear was substantiated by Houston, but Smith still took a gamble yesterday, although a somewhat smaller one, by signing Graves from the Oilers. Like Shanahan, Graves is a Type I free agent, which means the Rangers will have to pay compensation to the Oilers.

Smith likes Graves a great deal. He scouted Graves as a junior when Smith was with Detroit in 1986. The Red Wings made Graves their second choice in the draft and 22d over all in 1986. He was sent to Edmonton in 1989 in a package deal that brought Jimmy Carson to Detroit. Pursued by Other Teams'

The acquisition of Graves, or someone who could play center like him, became almost imperative for the Rangers after the loss of Kelly Kisio in the expansion draft and last week's injury to Darren Turcotte, who fractured his wrist playing for the United States in the Canada Cup.

What prompted Smith to sign Graves was the fact that Graves was vigorously pursued by the Flyers and the Kings, among other teams. He is considered a good character player with strong defensive abilities and leadership qualities. If the Rangers fail to work out a compensation agreement with the Oilers and the case goes to Houston, the Rangers could conceivably lose a player of higher value than Graves.

Although Graves had only 7 goals and 18 assists in 76 games last season and has 23 goals in 217 regular-season games in the league, his contract with the Rangers is believed to be triple his $115,000 salary with Edmonton last season.



Blues offered Lou Curtis Joseph, forward Rod Brind'Amour, and two draft picks, but Lou said no and demanded Stevens. BLues didnt have any first round picks having given them to Washington for Stevens, and thus crapped out.

Sad day in Blues history. SAD.
Official LGB Sponsor of Bernie Federko's Stonewashed Jeans, Custom Cabinets, and cold Busch Light.
fargoblues
LGB Booster - Yellow
LGB Booster - Yellow
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: In Fargo, eh?

Re: Did the Blues deserve to lose Stevens?

Postby glen a richter » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:32 pm

The Devils and Rangers both ended up winners. The Blues ended up in the dump. What else is new? :facepalm:
LGB sponsor of Ian Cole 2011-2012
LGB sponsor of Gary Bettman's Pink Slip 2013
LGB sponsor of Dmitrij Jaskin 2013-2014
LGB sponsor of Ian Cole (again) 2014-2015
glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 7532
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Next

Return to St. Louis Blues Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Portland Blues, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests