Blues Eyeing Coyotes/Devils?

[dmiles2186]

[tweet][/tweet]

Small nugget, but a nugget nonetheless. I've long liked Keith Yandle. Aside from that, AZ seems ripe for the picking.

[Kerfuffle]

Everyone has their eyes on Vermette of the Coyotes.

[Oaklandblue]

Possibly a three team trade? I can't see us needing anything beyond a depth defenseman that can hit. We seem fine with everything else and when Shatt gets back, we should be even better. I don't see us having resources we'd be fine to trade off that would have enough value to upgrade unless someone wants to give us value for a trade of Berglund + Ott + Paaj and I don't see that happening. But if we could do that....

[glen a richter]

Call me nuts, but... Berglund+Ott+Paajarvi for a rental in Jaromir Jagr. Jagr wouldn't be on the team beyond this years playoffs, obvious rental, and it works out swimmingly for New Jersey who could certainly use parts during their rebuild. Plus we're talking about Lou Lamoriello here, so you never know.

That also frees up (ultimately) a sizeable chunk of change when trying to lock up Tarasenko, and makes it possible for Phil McRae to get his due and finally play on the big club and probably produce more, offensively, than Ott ever did.

[Toasted Oates]

In JR's last chat (Thursday) he mentioned Jagr as a possibility and that he "wouldn't rule it out." He was also asked where Jagr would fit in the lineup:

If you like Jagr enough, and think he can help you, you're probably willing to give up a piece that opens up a spot. New Jersey is building and could use just about anything. I know this goes away from what I believe Armstrong is thinking (I don't think he's necessarily focused on roster player for roster player), but the Blues don't have a first-round pick next summer and if they were OK with the roster player they were giving up, I could see it happening.

I honestly don't know that NJ would take Ott, but Berglund? Like glen said, that's a "right now" sort of move. You get Jagr off the books after the playoffs, Berglund's already gone, and if they took Ott...even better.

Then again, I wonder if this is the best deal to throw Berglund into and if there's something better out there. Luckily, Armstrong probably already knows.

By the way, Jagr has 11G, 18A in 56 games. Not staggering, but with lesser linemates then he would have here. Even so, that point total is enough to crack the Blues' top 10.

[ComradeT]

In JR's last chat (Thursday) he mentioned Jagr as a possibility and that he "wouldn't rule it out." He was also asked where Jagr would fit in the lineup:

If you like Jagr enough, and think he can help you, you're probably willing to give up a piece that opens up a spot. New Jersey is building and could use just about anything. I know this goes away from what I believe Armstrong is thinking (I don't think he's necessarily focused on roster player for roster player), but the Blues don't have a first-round pick next summer and if they were OK with the roster player they were giving up, I could see it happening.

I honestly don't know that NJ would take Ott, but Berglund? Like glen said, that's a "right now" sort of move. You get Jagr off the books after the playoffs, Berglund's already gone, and if they took Ott...even better.

Then again, I wonder if this is the best deal to throw Berglund into and if there's something better out there. Luckily, Armstrong probably already knows.

By the way, Jagr has 11G, 18A in 56 games. Not staggering, but with lesser linemates then he would have here. Even so, that point total is enough to crack the Blues' top 10.

The last thing the Blues need is a 43-year old. West playoffs are way too physical and intense. This would be basically setting everyone up for a huge disappointment.

[gaijin]

In JR's last chat (Thursday) he mentioned Jagr as a possibility and that he "wouldn't rule it out." He was also asked where Jagr would fit in the lineup:

If you like Jagr enough, and think he can help you, you're probably willing to give up a piece that opens up a spot. New Jersey is building and could use just about anything. I know this goes away from what I believe Armstrong is thinking (I don't think he's necessarily focused on roster player for roster player), but the Blues don't have a first-round pick next summer and if they were OK with the roster player they were giving up, I could see it happening.

I honestly don't know that NJ would take Ott, but Berglund? Like glen said, that's a "right now" sort of move. You get Jagr off the books after the playoffs, Berglund's already gone, and if they took Ott...even better.

Then again, I wonder if this is the best deal to throw Berglund into and if there's something better out there. Luckily, Armstrong probably already knows.

By the way, Jagr has 11G, 18A in 56 games. Not staggering, but with lesser linemates then he would have here. Even so, that point total is enough to crack the Blues' top 10.

The last thing the Blues need is a 43-year old. West playoffs are way too physical and intense. This would be basically setting everyone up for a huge disappointment.

Agreed, but it would be more of a move to get some salaries off the books for next season. I fully accept that Jagr would not be our playoff savior, but I don't think anyone is expecting Berglund or Ott to be, either. Jagr's 11 goals is more than Berglund's 7 and Ott's 2, at any rate. As far as Ott is concerned, while I don't like how much we are paying him, I think he is actually the one of the three I would want on my team during the playoffs, precisely because of the physically intense nature of a playoff run in the West.

So I suppose I am indifferent to whether this deal happens. Ups and downs with either way.

[glen a richter]

This is entirely a move to get cap space. You also get experience, short term, from a guy who won't be logging first line minutes, and it gives you a chance to right a wrong by getting a more offensively inclined guy (McRae, perhaps) up with the club well in advance of the playoffs. The 4th line that this team has does not jive with the direction 4th lines are moving in the league. They're demanding more minutes and more production. As long as our 4th line can be counted on for less than 10 goals a season, and less than 10 minutes of TOI per game, we're missing a major piece of the puzzle.

[WaukeeBlues]

Yea I think if you're going to mortgage the farm to get Yandle he's young enough and good enough that you'd make a serious effort to re-sign him. And the Blues can't do that this offseason. Unless the 'Yotes took SIGNIFICANT salary off of our books I wouldn't make that deal.

Plus we already don't have a 2015 first rounder so we'd be dealing away our 2016 (likely) in many scenarios if we're talking Vermette/Yandle, etc, and that doesn't appeal to me.

The only spot Jagr truly fits in with any team in this league looking at the playoffs is if they need help on the power-play. That's it. He doesn't do you much good at even strength because he doesn't have the legs he used to. NHL.com lists us with the 4th best power-play in the NHL right now. So other than shedding salary I'm not sure why you make that deal. And I wouldn't trade any picks in rounds 1-3, maybe even through round 4, for Jagr either.

[The Flake]

Ive been thinking for the last couple of weeks that the Blues would go after Jagr. I've never been a huge fan but you gotta admit that it would be a great locker room presence for leadership in winning (the cup) and for a 3rd / 4th line guy that would be great. If we could unload any of the personnel mention in previous posts that would be a bonus. At 43 Jagr has had an amazing season and we could rest him as much as he needs with the depth we have. Historically, I've never liked Jagr when he was with Mario etc. but I think this would be a great move for us. No one from Phoenix really interests me. I agree that no picks should be given out.

[Kerfuffle]

The Blues biggest risk here is making a trade you don't need. The universal discussion on the other message boards I'm on as well as NHL articles I've read is that the Blues acquisition of Miller last year when they didn't need a goaltender was a big mistake. You guys are firing on all cylinders now so I don't know why anyone would want to mess with the current chemistry and team makeup.

[cardsfan04]

The Blues biggest risk here is making a trade you don't need. The universal discussion on the other message boards I'm on as well as NHL articles I've read is that the Blues acquisition of Miller last year when they didn't need a goaltender was a big mistake. You guys are firing on all cylinders now so I don't know why anyone would want to mess with the current chemistry and team makeup.

Completely agree. We should obviously be looking (that's Army's job), but I don't think we should do something just to do it. We're already near the cap, so to get anything of real value, we'd have to give away some salary too.

[gaijin]

The Blues biggest risk here is making a trade you don't need. The universal discussion on the other message boards I'm on as well as NHL articles I've read is that the Blues acquisition of Miller last year when they didn't need a goaltender was a big mistake. You guys are firing on all cylinders now so I don't know why anyone would want to mess with the current chemistry and team makeup.

I wouldn't call us "firing on all cylinders" right now. We're doing well in the standings, yes, but lately we've been having a bit of a "speed bump" moment. We're 4-4 in our last 8 games, and given up 4 or more goals in each of those losses. Not end-of-the-world type stuff (please don't give me an F-, Comrade ), and most likely things will rebound on their own when Shattenkirk returns, but you're crazy if you think management doesn't have the team under a microscope right now, looking for the best way to push that win % back up.

That said- you're right- we shouldn't make a trade we don't need. However, a salary dump (especially at a time when many teams are willing to move players) to make room for Tarasenko's eventual contract might be exactly what we need.

[glen a richter]

Now's the perfect time for salary dumps. You think we'll get more for Berglund and Ott in the offseason than we will now when teams like NJ are looking to unload guys like Jagr? Those guys are unlikely to be playoff heroes, so why not maximize whatever you can get now? Jagr will still be gone and so will a lot of money on the payroll. It could be the difference between "can we afford Tarasenko?" and "We can afford Tarasenko". I'd rather get a body in return who can help or, at the very least, not be any worse than what we have in ol' Bergie and the Otter.

[ecbm]

The Blues biggest risk here is making a trade you don't need. The universal discussion on the other message boards I'm on as well as NHL articles I've read is that the Blues acquisition of Miller last year when they didn't need a goaltender was a big mistake. You guys are firing on all cylinders now so I don't know why anyone would want to mess with the current chemistry and team makeup.

Yep. As I keep saying, I just don't see anything available that actually improves the Blues and fits. Given cap restraints, I'd only be interested in a Yandle if we could move, say, Bouwmeester. And I think the quest basically to justify signing Stastny by getting him on a more productive line is quixotic. He's in the first year of a one-year deal and there are other priorities. Offense generally isn't a problem right now anyway. Now a top pairing defenseman who's actually on form and is physically effective, that we could use. Not sure how we're going to get there from here. I only see the Blues making minor deals if any at the deadline.

[ecbm]

You think we'll get more for Berglund and Ott in the offseason than we will now when teams like NJ are looking to unload guys like Jagr?

I hear you but I think we're getting the same very little for Berglund regardless. His salary...ugh...I expect nothing more back from him than not having to pay him anymore.

Ott definitely holds value right now but-while I would move him anyway-I can see how the FO feels he's a useful player in the squad. Not the worst piece to have, I have to admit.

Paajarvi's losing luster by the moment but still has upside and doesn't make much. Has shown some willingness to play different roles. I think he could be moved if needed. I'd do it and can see it happening. Again, minor moves.

[TSUCookieMonster]

The Blues biggest risk here is making a trade you don't need. The universal discussion on the other message boards I'm on as well as NHL articles I've read is that the Blues acquisition of Miller last year when they didn't need a goaltender was a big mistake. You guys are firing on all cylinders now so I don't know why anyone would want to mess with the current chemistry and team makeup.

+1.

I wouldn't get rid of Ott either. It's fun watching him and Reaves on the same line. It's not Otts fault they agreed to the contract they did. His agent did his job. That being said, if it's a salary dump for Tarasenko... do what you have to do, but I'd wait until the off season. Chemistry is good.

Speaking of chemistry: Did Backes and Tarasenko work out their fight at practice or is it still lingering?

[Toasted Oates]

I'm surprised some of you are worried about chemistry. Hitchcock shuffles the lines on a whim.Tonight, for example, they're starting the game with:

74-42-21
20-12-91
17-26-23
9-57-75

Other than the 4th line, those are pretty jumbled up compared to Saturday night. Just my opinion, but I don't think moving Berglund or Ott would be catastrophic to the team's chemistry. Now, if we're talking about locker room chemistry, it's hard to say how much the team can move on with their buddies getting moved. But they've dealt with it pretty well before, as would be expected of a pro hockey team.

The necessity of a trade is arguable, sure. And if these guys have played just OK the last week or so because they're saving steam for the playoffs....I can get down with that. We're not talking a blockbuster here, just moving some salaries around. You won't convince me trading Patrik Berglund would make the team worse.

EDIT: I forgot Ott didn't play against Pittsburgh, so all the lines are different.

[glen a richter]

I was reading the ESPN trade deadline preview and they mentioned that the Blues currently have 5.9 mil in free cap space. Am I missing something? I thought we were spent to the cap.

In any event, I maintain that our 4th line still doesn't jive with what a 4th line needs to be in this era. They should be producing over 10 minutes of TOI to help roll the lines more efficiently and scoring with more frequency than they do. Our 4th line is old school. I like Reaves, I tolerate Ott and I've yet to establish much of an opinion on Goc, but we need a more productive 4th line to compete with the other teams in the league. Reaves, I think, has the skill set necessary to score 10+ if he was given better linemates and I'm not suggesting getting rid of the enforcers altogether, but we need more from that line than we're getting right now.

In any event, imagine how much better the team would be, overall, if everyone got a little less ice time every game because the 4th line was able to shoulder more of the load. Keep 'em fresher, longer and come at the opponents in waves.

[drwoland]

I was reading the ESPN trade deadline preview and they mentioned that the Blues currently have 5.9 mil in free cap space. Am I missing something? I thought we were spent to the cap.

In any event, I maintain that our 4th line still doesn't jive with what a 4th line needs to be in this era. They should be producing over 10 minutes of TOI to help roll the lines more efficiently and scoring with more frequency than they do. Our 4th line is old school. I like Reaves, I tolerate Ott and I've yet to establish much of an opinion on Goc, but we need a more productive 4th line to compete with the other teams in the league. Reaves, I think, has the skill set necessary to score 10+ if he was given better linemates and I'm not suggesting getting rid of the enforcers altogether, but we need more from that line than we're getting right now.

In any event, imagine how much better the team would be, overall, if everyone got a little less ice time every game because the 4th line was able to shoulder more of the load. Keep 'em fresher, longer and come at the opponents in waves.

I was completely flabbergasted when they opted to get rid of Cracknell and demoted Porter. Was Cracknell going to be too expensive or something? That line was fun as hell to watch.