Let's Go Blues

Why in the HELL is Chicago in the Spezza sweepstakes? That makes absolutely no sense to me. They're going to trade away assets to acquire a player they have no hope of re-signing next season because of salary cap constraints? HUH?!

WaukeeBlues wrote:Why in the HELL is Chicago in the Spezza sweepstakes? That makes absolutely no sense to me. They're going to trade away assets to acquire a player they have no hope of re-signing next season because of salary cap constraints? HUH?!

I just saw that too.. if he goes to Chi town....

flyingnote38 wrote:I don't think this is a bad signing at all. Locking in for three years probably makes him a more attractive trade asset than being an RFA with arbitration rights.

Even if he stays its not a bad contract. Berglund is not a bad player; he just should be better than his is given his skill set and size. That said among NHL forwards playing in 62 or more games last season, Berglund was 37th in the NHL in CF%. Of the 10 Blues forwards who qualified, he was smack dab in the middle at #5 right behind Backes and just ahead of Oshie. He's better and younger than most of his "cap comparables."

As far as Schwartz is concerned, this deal is largely irrelevent. This is Schwartz's first year as an RFA and he isn't arbitration eligible. So this doesn't set the bar for a deal for him, though if we are smart we ought to offer him 5 years at the same AAV, cause next summer we will likely be paying him more than this deal.

I have to agree. I pretty much said the same thing at http://www.stlouisgametime.com/2014/6/2 ... s-contract

Must be a sign-and-trade.

Looks like one more indication of coming salary inflation. Berglund is an NHL mediocrity. At 26 he's no longer a prospect. He doesn't have a clear position. He didn't rank higher than 108th in the league in any statistical category last year. He scored 2 PP goals. He's a career -12 in the playoffs. He may have a future as a 3rd-liner though similarly to what some have said above, I'd prefer Cracknell or Porter or even Pajaarvi to get those minutes. For comparison, David Perron made $3M last year to score 28 goals (26th in NHL) including 8 PP goals (30th in NHL) on a terrible team.

This deal most certainly affects Schwarz and all players in the league though I think it is a reflection of where the entire NHL salary structure is going. Rumor says Kane & Toews are looking for $12 per and nobody scoffs at it. Maybe I'm clutching at straws-yesterday morning I would have speculated that nobody would take on Berglund at $3.7 per.

Oh please let this be a sign-and-trade.

CanesandBluesFan wrote:

flyingnote38 wrote:I don't think this is a bad signing at all. Locking in for three years probably makes him a more attractive trade asset than being an RFA with arbitration rights.

Even if he stays its not a bad contract. Berglund is not a bad player; he just should be better than his is given his skill set and size. That said among NHL forwards playing in 62 or more games last season, Berglund was 37th in the NHL in CF%. Of the 10 Blues forwards who qualified, he was smack dab in the middle at #5 right behind Backes and just ahead of Oshie. He's better and younger than most of his "cap comparables."

As far as Schwartz is concerned, this deal is largely irrelevent. This is Schwartz's first year as an RFA and he isn't arbitration eligible. So this doesn't set the bar for a deal for him, though if we are smart we ought to offer him 5 years at the same AAV, cause next summer we will likely be paying him more than this deal.

I have to agree. I pretty much said the same thing at http://www.stlouisgametime.com/2014/6/2 ... s-contract

A lot of problems with your piece there that undermine its thrust. First: many of those comparable guys who don't look better than Berglund statistically are veterans. The pay scale is higher for them. They potentially bring intangibles. Justin Williams, anyone? Also, it's not too bad that 25% of those comparable players outperformed Berglund last year? What are this club's ambitions again? And that those 25% include all but two of the comparable players who aren't over 30? Another thing-Berglund isn't a center. He just isn't. He failed at that position and lost his spot to the likes of Roy, Boat and LaPierre. His failure to develop is also part of why Backes was converted to C.

Is $3.7m for a UFA-eligible 35 point center a bad deal? Not in today's NHL.

I do agree that salaries look to be right on the cusp of blowing up again. Not to say there's anything wrong with that-the league and teams are making better money and the players deserve their fair cut.

Unless the real explanation is the the organization thinks that the Blues fanbase are a bunch of rubes who want the familiar rather than the good.

ecbm wrote:A lot of problems with your piece there that undermine its thrust. First: many of those comparable guys who don't look better than Berglund statistically are veterans. The pay scale is higher for them. They potentially bring intangibles. Justin Williams, anyone? Also, it's not too bad that 25% of those comparable players outperformed Berglund last year? What are this club's ambitions again? And that those 25% include all but two of the comparable players who aren't over 30? Another thing-Berglund isn't a center. He just isn't. He failed at that position and lost his spot to the likes of Roy, Boat and LaPierre. His failure to develop is also part of why Backes was converted to C.

So many things wrong all at once. Let's break that down a little.

ecbm wrote:The pay scale is higher for (veterans).

Yep. That's why I compared Berglund's point production to players who signed deals that bridged their RFA and UFA years.

ecbm wrote:25% of those comparable players outperformed Berglund

if so, then a back of the envelope calculation suggests that 75% didn't, though I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I compared Berglund to 5 players. All 5 of the comparables had better 2013-14 seasons than Berglund and 4 of the 5 had lesser best seasons.

ecbm wrote:Another thing-Berglund isn't a center.

Backes took 1201 faceoffs. Sobotka took 813. Berglund took 783. Lapierre and the others took less than 600 each. If Berglund is not a center, what is he? A wing who takes a lot of faceoffs?

ecbm wrote: (Berglund's) failure to develop is also part of why Backes was converted to C.

2008-09 was Berglund's rookie year. Backes took 477 faceoffs that year and 1065 the next. Backes was being converted to center at the point Berglund joined the team.

Venturing into another post

ecbm wrote:Berglund is an NHL mediocrity.

Yep. In 2014, mediocre 26 year old centers make $3.7m or so.

I'm tired of waiting for Berglund to fulfill his potential. I'm happy to see him get moved for a real 1C.
Is his contract a bad contract? Not at all.

CanesandBluesFan wrote: So many things wrong all at once. Let's break that down a little.

No problem, but let's keep analyzing.

Armstrong says Berglund is not a center. At best he's a guy who can play there in a pinch. If another club with whom the Blues are negotiating sees him as one, nobody on the St. Louis end is going to contradict that but fact is the organization that gave him this contract thinks he's not a center. The Blues' regular centers last season were Backes, Roy, Sobotka and Lapierre. Faceoffs aren't necessarily telling either. Steen took a lot at the end of the year and in the playoffs and was not a center at any time.

The main problem I see with your piece are those lists of comparable players. The second table is telling and not in a way that supports your point especially when you consider that the club that gave Berglund this contract does not see him as a center. Putting aside that he scored the fewest points of anyone in that group, I also find it alarming that among those players Berglund had the biggest negative differential between his best season and last season-only Stafford is close. He appears headed in the wrong direction. Why give a significant pay raise after a down year on a bridge/prove-it contract?

I'd prefer not to see Berglund back at any price. We have younger, cheaper and potentially better forwards who would do just as well in his role and probably should get his minutes so we can find out what we have in them. We know what we have in Berglund-a massive underachiever.

We seem to be focused on different issues.

Your focus is Berglund the player. I agree with your basic assessment. He is a tremendously disappointing player. With his size and skill he should be an MVP candidate. He's not. He's a guy you expect 35 points from. I would love for them to package him with other assets to get a real 1C or at least a better scoring winger.

My focus is the contract. It's not a great contract but it's not a bad contract. Guys like Read and Stafford score about what Bergy does, and make about what Bergy does. Neither of them are centers. Berglund's contract is not going to be a hindrance to moving him. If anything, it's an asset. Team know their cost for 3 years. Worst case scenario, Berglund stays in St. Louis and moves to the wing on the third line. His contract isn't going to get in the way of signing Stasny (or any of the alternatives).

I look at faceoffs taken as a proxy for shifts played at center. If there's a better way to figure out who is actually playing center I'm open to the suggestion.

CanesandBluesFan wrote:We seem to be focused on different issues.

My focus is the contract.

I can see that, in a way-that's why I've made the comments about how NHL salaries are looking like a rising tide that will raise all ships. I think some of the shock at the contract has to do with not anticipating Berglund getting a substantial raise after a down season on a 1-year deal. Inflation and where he is in terms of service time accounts for much of that though, ok. I still don't understand giving him 3 years though if they're not trying to deal him. Why not give him the 3 years before last season? He was better in the strike-shortened season than last year and would have been cheaper. So while I get your point and can't dismiss it, it's still a bit odd as a contract. I'm still confident they'll trade him-I'd have been fine if they moved him in a deal for a pick (like Polak) and given his minutes to Cracknell or even Porter or Pajaarvi.

That said, your article starts by noting the doom and gloom over here. That's the frame you give it. The doom and gloom is not because of the specifics of the contract-it's because most here want Berglund moved rather than watch him eat minutes doing nothing for three more seasons.

Bergs Numbers

year GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM

2008–09- 76 21 26 47 16 4 0 0 0 2

2009–10- 71 13 13 26 16

2010–11- 81 22 30 52 26

2011–12- 82 19 19 38 30 9 3 4 7 6

2012–13- 48 17 8 25 12 6 1 1 2 2

2013–140- 78 14 18 32 38 4 0 0 0 0

Honestly not too bad Besides 09-10 and last year

But then you look at guys like Radim Vrbata who will sign for close to the same as berg and put up way better numbers

APOD wrote: Honestly not too bad Besides 09-10 and last year

That's the problem - dude got a decent contract while his production is dwindling. Nobody would be mad if he was putting up 50pts/season and something other than four goose eggs in the playoffs last year. He was playing with an injury, but those four zeros are just STARING at me.

I don't have the energy to recreate all the different line configurations we've had over the years, but I'm wondering if his lack of production stems from not having good line mates. Maybe if he doesn't have to play center and ends up on a line with a good one, he'll suddenly start producing. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

What about his position? Did he center the majority of those years or was he on the wing in the earlier seasons?

Gotta agree with Viper and the rest of you that unless they trade Berglund it's a dumb signing.

drwoland wrote:I don't have the energy to recreate all the different line configurations we've had over the years, but I'm wondering if his lack of production stems from not having good line mates. Maybe if he doesn't have to play center and ends up on a line with a good one, he'll suddenly start producing. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I think Berglund absolutely has the skill and potential to produce at a higher level than he has. Maybe it is a linemate issue, but we should still be seeing more from him individually. It comes down to him wanting to produce at a higher level. To me it's all about the fire, the heart, the will, whatever it is that motivates a player to give that 110%. I've seen flashes of it, but then also seen stretches where I hardly even hear his name. Sound familiar? I'm just concerned that this is Chris Stewart 2.0.

ViPeRx007 wrote:

drwoland wrote:I don't have the energy to recreate all the different line configurations we've had over the years, but I'm wondering if his lack of production stems from not having good line mates. Maybe if he doesn't have to play center and ends up on a line with a good one, he'll suddenly start producing. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I think Berglund absolutely has the skill and potential to produce at a higher level than he has. Maybe it is a linemate issue, but we should still be seeing more from him individually. It comes down to him wanting to produce at a higher level. To me it's all about the fire, the heart, the will, whatever it is that motivates a player to give that 110%. I've seen flashes of it, but then also seen stretches where I hardly even hear his name. Sound familiar? I'm just concerned that this is Chris Stewart 2.0.

But hey, we traded Stewart for Ryan Miller and that was huge for..... oh wait, never mind.

Vrbata got significantly more albeit as a UFA.

Armstrong seems to think Berglund is our 3rd line center with sobotka and Oshie as the 3rd line wingers

I'm trying to switch my feelings about this into positive ones, but until I'm proven wrong it's going to be difficult.

I gotta think Hitchcock had some say in this deal as well. I think if he wanted him gone, he probably would be. There were definitely other options so he must see something in Berglund.

In Hitch/Army I Trust...

here's a rumor to buoy your spirits

EDMONTON JOURNAL: Jim Matheson suggests David Legwand could be a good free agent target for the Oilers to address their need for a center. David Staples suggests trying to acquire St. Louis Blues center Patrik Berglund, as long as defenseman Jeff Petry isn’t part of the return