Free Agent Moves and Major Trades

[Kerfuffle]

My team just signed Jordin Tootoo - ugh!

Just when I thought the John Scott days were behind us we go out and sign a goon. I guess when you're out of money you have to feed at the bottom of the barrel.

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=888660

[gaijin]

My team just signed Jordin Tootoo - ugh!

Just when I thought the John Scott days were behind us we go out and sign a goon. I guess when you're out of money you have to feed at the bottom of the barrel.

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=888660

Is it time to bring this :dietootoo: back?

I wasn't sure if we still had it.

[Kerfuffle]

My team just signed Jordin Tootoo - ugh!

Just when I thought the John Scott days were behind us we go out and sign a goon. I guess when you're out of money you have to feed at the bottom of the barrel.

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=888660

Is it time to bring this :dietootoo: back?

I wasn't sure if we still had it.

That's awesome! Yeah I always hated Tootoo - I loved when we had Wisniewski beat him up back in 2008 just when the buzzer went off to end the game. He'll play a few games and spend the majority sitting in the press box as another wasted roster spot.

[ecbm]

Is it time to bring this :dietootoo: back? I wasn't sure if we still had it.

It went away? My hate for Tootoo didn't...

[WaukeeBlues]

My team just signed Jordin Tootoo - ugh!

Just when I thought the John Scott days were behind us we go out and sign a goon. I guess when you're out of money you have to feed at the bottom of the barrel.

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=888660

Joking aside I truly feel the Blackhawks are in THAT desperate of straits. Maybe they really feel that there's no toughness down in the bottom 6 with Shaw gone too so that may have contributed to it too.

Not quite sure what some of the older veteran's are asking that are still available UFA's (Hudler, Cullen, etc) but I would have to think to get the chance to play on a Blackhawks squad always shooting for a cup they'd be willing to play at a discount? Maybe?

Or the Blackhawks really feel that some of their kids are ready to take the jump to the big club, mainly Hartman and Schmaltz.

[theohall]

Schwartz filed for arbitration.

Army's killing it this summer.

So either they work something out now, or Schwartz plays for the next 3 seasons (after repeating arbitration), gets the stats he should have had before being injured, and the Blues won't be able to afford him in 3 seasons when he's increased his value and can become a UFA. Nothing good for the Blues if Army doesn't get a long term deal for Schwartz. Wonder if it's Army or Schwartz?

What if Schwartz is looking for a shorter term deal to hit the market as a UFA at age 27 - which would be after 3 seasons exactly. If the Blues are offering more than 3 years, they have to consider what Schwartz would likely get as a UFA on any year after 3 of the contract. They probably didn't, so Schwartz files for arbitration, will likely get more money under arbitration and can do so again until he winds up a UFA exactly at 27. Who knows what's going on, but if I'm Schwartz's agent, I'm pushing the "make sure you get paid as if you were a UFA any year beyond 3 of the contract" angle.

And if I'm Schwartz's agent and it is a long term deal, schedule it like Stamkos and Hedman's deals. Contract is mostly annual bonuses (all guaranteed) with 1M in salary each year, which beats the 67% of the contract guarantee, because of the bonus clauses in the CBA.

[ecbm]

Wonder if it's Army or Schwartz?

Wrong question to ask. Only one person in that negotiation represents the interests of the Blues-Doug Armstrong. Schwartz's people represent Schwartz and his best interests. As a Blues fan, it's Armstrong who you evaluate.

Schwartz may well be asking too much. It's on Army to maximize the asset for the Blues. All I can say at this point is that if Schwartz does go all the way to the hearing, I'm disappointed that Armstrong clearly didn't think that was the case-otherwise he could have approached free agency differently. That ship has now sailed.

[cardsfan04]

It concerns me that this is the second time we've struggled to work out a deal with Schwartz. Armstrong has to make sure the deal makes sense for the Blues and I don't begrudge a player for trying to maximize their earnings. Athletes have a limited window of earning potential compared to other professions. So, I get it. But, as a fan, our ability to keep him here longterm is something that concerns me.

[WaukeeBlues]

Avalanche lock up Nate MacKinnon to 7 years, $44.1 million (cap hit $6.3)
'13-'14: 82GP 24G 63PTS
'14-'15: 64GP 14G 38PTS
'15-'16: 72GP 21G 52PTS
Average PPG: .70

Jets lock up Scheifle for 8 years at $49 million (cap hit cap hit $6.125).
(I'm counting only his "full" seasons here)
'13-'14: 63GP 13G 34PTS
'14-'15: 82GP 15G 49PTS
'15-'16: 71GP 29G 61PTS
Average PPG: .66

Both are good contracts but I think Scheifle's is going to be amazing for the Jets here in the very near future. His trajectory is going exactly where you want to see it from the stat line point of view. MacKinnon? I think there's still a little bit of a question in Colorado as to what exactly it is that they have. That was a wicked sophomore slump.

Jaden Schwartz you ask?
'12-'13: 45GP 7G 13PTS
'13-'14: 80GP 25G 56PTS
'14-'15: 75GP 28G 63PTS
'15-'16: 33GP 8G 22PTS
Average PPG: .66


So if we look at the two extensions that were just signed and the numbers comparison, I mean the market is setting itself. Schwartz should get about a 6-8 year deal at $6-$7 million.

What am I missing?

Get it done.

[Robb_K]

Wonder if it's Army or Schwartz?

Wrong question to ask. Only one person in that negotiation represents the interests of the Blues-Doug Armstrong. Schwartz's people represent Schwartz and his best interests. As a Blues fan, it's Armstrong who you evaluate.

Schwartz may well be asking too much. It's on Army to maximize the asset for the Blues. All I can say at this point is that if Schwartz does go all the way to the hearing, I'm disappointed that Armstrong clearly didn't think that was the case-otherwise he could have approached free agency differently. That ship has now sailed.

I hope they can reach an agreement on a long-term contract at a compromise amount, given that Schwartz was injured, and hasn't really proven that he's capable of sustaining high scoring totals year after year. His agent has to know that an arbitrator is not going to give him Tarasenko money, when he's proved a LOT less. I hope he'll accept a compromise salary level and a compromise term, to gain some security, rather than choose to go to arbitration.

[ecbm]

I've said it before-with our home grown players I think Armstrong tends to expect to get them at a discount that may or may not apply. Just give him what the market demands and get it overwith. The team already sat on the sidelines during free agency to accommodate this. Get it the (Frank) done.

[theohall]

Including FAs before all the signings, what unrestricted natural LWs were available who could replace Schwartz?? The list is really, really, small for natural LWs - which makes Armstrong under-valuing Schwartz an issue, if that's what's happening in negotiations.

Given those current signings, Schwartz will likely win a short term 6M 1 or 2 year contract, since the max is 2 years (Blues get to choose if it's 1 year or 2) if it gets to arbitration. Even then, it puts him right back in arbitration at age 26, one year before becoming unrestricted - unless they actually work something out.

[WaukeeBlues]

Wonder if it's Army or Schwartz?

Wrong question to ask. Only one person in that negotiation represents the interests of the Blues-Doug Armstrong. Schwartz's people represent Schwartz and his best interests. As a Blues fan, it's Armstrong who you evaluate.

Schwartz may well be asking too much. It's on Army to maximize the asset for the Blues. All I can say at this point is that if Schwartz does go all the way to the hearing, I'm disappointed that Armstrong clearly didn't think that was the case-otherwise he could have approached free agency differently. That ship has now sailed.

I hope they can reach an agreement on a long-term contract at a compromise amount, given that Schwartz was injured, and hasn't really proven that he's capable of sustaining high scoring totals year after year. His agent has to know that an arbitrator is not going to give him Tarasenko money, when he's proved a LOT less. I hope he'll accept a compromise salary level and a compromise term, to gain some security, rather than choose to go to arbitration.

I think the bigger issue, for both sides frankly, is term. An arbitrator can only award one year deals if I remember correctly. Every professional athlete who's ever lived wants security. A one year deal coming off of a major injury is not optimal for Schwartz. Or at least it shouldn't be but then again maybe he knows he feels 100% and values himself higher than his stats? Hard to say.

As I painfully broke down in the post a few up there: he's right there as far as the money that MacKinnon and Schiefle just got. I don't think it's really even an option to let this guy get away.

Unless we trade him for a great asset that also happens to be a left wing...

[ecbm]

Unless we trade him for a great asset that also happens to be a left wing...

So are we considering Fabbri as locked into the wing he played last season? He was a center at every level up that point. If he's flexible at all, I don't get the fixation on LWs, specifically, going on recently. Especially at a club that just drafted, what, 5 centers?

[theohall]

The thing with drafting a bunch of centers, it's easier to move them to wing and the Blues did balance the left vs right-handed thing in all those centers drafted.

For this season, and likely the next, Fabbri is a LW, unless someone magically appears from the aether to supplant Paajarvi or the coaches decide to keep Steen at LW where he belongs while actually giving Fabbri a shot at C. Don't see that happening with this coaching staff, though, especially given how badly Yeo mismanaged Granlund in Minny.

So did anyone find a LW who was in the unrestricted free agent market Army was supposed to acquire instead of focusing on re-signing Schwartz? I still can't find a reasonable name among those who were available. The key word in that sentence is "reasonable." Consider how much Jamie McGinn got on July 1st and would any have praised that signing?? And, no, the Blues weren't going to be signing Milan Lucic at 6M per for 7 years.

I love it when folks blame the GM for not doing something at a specific position when there isn't anyone for the GM to do anything with at that specific position, outside of keeping the younger talent already on the roster in-house. Especially when the big trade falls through not necessarily of his own accord - as in Shattenkirk putting up the road blocks in terms of signing an extension.

[Oaklandblue]

The thing with drafting a bunch of centers, it's easier to move them to wing and the Blues did balance the left vs right-handed thing in all those centers drafted.

For this season, and likely the next, Fabbri is a LW, unless someone magically appears from the aether to supplant Paajarvi or the coaches decide to keep Steen at LW where he belongs while actually giving Fabbri a shot at C. Don't see that happening with this coaching staff, though, especially given how badly Yeo mismanaged Granlund in Minny.

So did anyone find a LW who was in the unrestricted free agent market Army was supposed to acquire instead of focusing on re-signing Schwartz? I still can't find a reasonable name among those who were available. The key word in that sentence is "reasonable." Consider how much Jamie McGinn got on July 1st and would any have praised that signing?? And, no, the Blues weren't going to be signing Milan Lucic at 6M per for 7 years.

I love it when folks blame the GM for not doing something at a specific position when there isn't anyone for the GM to do anything with at that specific position, outside of keeping the younger talent already on the roster in-house. Especially when the big trade falls through not necessarily of his own accord - as in Shattenkirk putting up the road blocks in terms of signing an extension.

Boomer at 50% retention +Schmaltz +Rattie for Hall couldn't have worked? I think Army tries to trade cheap, which I wont knock in certain situations but in case like Hall, I would overpay or pay the amount for quality.

[ecbm]

Boomer at 50% retention +Schmaltz +Rattie for Hall couldn't have worked? I think Army tries to trade cheap, which I wont knock in certain situations but in case like Hall, I would overpay or pay the amount for quality.

Agree completely and glad you brought up salary retention. Again, Bouwmeester could be moved and could even be valuable to a trade partner. Truth is, Hitch & Army want him on this team.

[Toasted Oates]

Jay Bouwmeester is 32, has 3 years left on his contract, and is left handed. Edmonton is unlikely to want this player. Plus, he has a no trade clause. This is a tough player to move, even if you wanted to. A cap stricken team retain salary and pay for an empty roster spot? Good luck.

EDIT: Now I'm not brushed up on the rules for the expansion draft and if the NTC in his contract protects him. That may be your best bet to see Bouwmeester hit the bricks.

[glen a richter]

Rattie signed a one year, one way deal. I'll assume a roster spot is his.

[theohall]

Boomer at 50% retention +Schmaltz +Rattie for Hall couldn't have worked? I think Army tries to trade cheap, which I wont knock in certain situations but in case like Hall, I would overpay or pay the amount for quality.

Agree completely and glad you brought up salary retention. Again, Bouwmeester could be moved and could even be valuable to a trade partner. Truth is, Hitch & Army want him on this team.

No. Why should Edmonton take on Bouwmeester's contract when they could acquire a younger defenseman with better ability (based on the past two season) who costs less for a longer term - which they got from New Jersey?? They need experience D, but not over-priced experienced D, because they have to start paying a bunch of players next season (all RFAs) and then McDavid the following season. Why take the over-priced Bouwmeester at all?? I wouldn't make that trade if I were Edmonton - especially with the forwards already there. Rattie wouldn't crack the top 12 forwards. And the trade - Edmonton knew they had Lucic coming in already. Trades aren't in a vacuum. Nice thought, but that's great for the Blues losing Bouwmeester, but completely ignores the talent already on the Oilers and their upcoming 2017 cap issues. Try again with something believable based on all information.

So, no, that trade wouldn't have gotten Hall if I'm Edmonton, knowing Lucic is already in the fold and a cheaper over a longer term, younger, experienced defenseman is available (from NJ), while I have to consider my 2017 RFA issues and the cap problems that will arise from it.