2019-2020 St. Louis Blues - Defending the Cup - Part 3: The Prelude to Playoff Positioning

[Klank Loves You]

Kostin is exempt according to CapFriendly’s expansion draft tool.

Since we’re talking expansion draft, what is the best case scenario for you guys? I think it obviously involves them just taking a player and is not us paying them to take someone but who is that person for you?

Faulk after a 2nd cup.

 

[Eldon Reid]

Kostin is exempt according to CapFriendly’s expansion draft tool.

Since we’re talking expansion draft, what is the best case scenario for you guys? I think it obviously involves them just taking a player and is not us paying them to take someone but who is that person for you?

Honestly it is so hard to predict right now because of Pietrangelo situation and other things. No matter what we will lose a good player for sure. I just hope we don't do a Minnesota or other teams and trade prospect to protect unless we are picky about who we trade.

I think Blues would hate to lose Dunn in a sense because then we have no other LHD besides Mikkola & Walman in the mix. (Can't say that 100% because Bouwmeester still looks good and may be around still but only on year by year contract). But you have Faulk who has looked really good on the off side lately.

If you look at the forward situation with the Blues.

UFA in 2021
Schwartz
Bozak
Steen
Gunnar

You protect the obvious
O'Reilly
Tarasenko
Thomas
Kyrou (especially if he keeps improving, but if he doesn't then you can expose him)
Sundqvist
Schenn

IMO the last spot is between Schwartz (If he signs long term), Barbashev, Perron, MacEachern & Sanford

Defensively, again depends on Pietrangeo situation.

If Pietrangelo signs,

Protect Pietrangelo, Parayko, & either Dunn or Faulk

No Pietragenlo

Protect Parayko, Faulk, & either Dunn or Mikkola (if he keeps getting better)

So no matter what, we are bound to lose a good player. I just hope we don't do something dumb.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

How different the Blues history would have been if Atlanta drafted Pietro 3rd instead of Bogosian. I was reminded of this recently after a Bogosian sighting.

Current state of the Blues:
1) First in the division/conference with a cushion, and tied for first in the league 3-ways with Boston and Washington.
2) defending Cup champs, making a solid defense
3) hosting a All-Star game (good for Stillman and the team financials I’m sure)
4) 4 all-star players (feels like a long time ago when Manny Legace and Brian Elliott were the team reps)
5) all-star head coach (so great to see Berube getting recognized this way)
6) potential road team for next year’s Winter Classic
7) excluding the Pietro re-signing, there really isn’t much roster drama on the horizon. This core is poised to stay together for a few years

It will never be this good again. If you’re not enjoying these days, watching the Blues play dominant hockey and getting the national accolades, you’re blowing it. Take it all in. Every franchise wishes they could have a 12 month period like this just once. Every fan wishes they could experience the euphoria of this success. Where does it end for the Blues? I’m not sure, but not yet.

 

[Stealth JD]

Faulk after a 2nd cup.

draft is after next season...so hopefully it's after a 3-peat.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Kostin is exempt according to CapFriendly’s expansion draft tool.

Since we’re talking expansion draft, what is the best case scenario for you guys? I think it obviously involves them just taking a player and is not us paying them to take someone but who is that person for you?

Perron, because he'll come back as a 100+pt player after spending a year in Seattle.

 

[Brian39]

Because after bad games he still draws into the top 6.

But he doesn't when you look at his actual usage. He draws into the wing with ROR/Perron because Berube is very obviously trying to create an evenly balanced attack where your 3rd line can go out and dominate.

But he is generally not getting top 6 minutes even when he is on that line. Against San Jose he was 7th among Blues forwards in TOI. Against Buffalo he was 8th. Against NYR he was 9th. For the season, Sanfords TOI/GP is 12th among Blues forwards and 10th among the currently-healthy roster. If you just look at the lines posted on twitter, he is "in the top 6." If you actually examine how Berube is deploying our forward groups, he isn't in the top 6.

I just don't get this narrative that a forward who is 12th on the team in TOI/GP and 10+ healthy scratches is a top 6 forward.

 

[Brian39]

Bruins are 27-19
Hurricanes(a wild card team) are 27-18

A wild card team has a better W/L record than the current Presidents Trophy leader. That’s what I hate so much about NHL standings. To quote Herm Edwards “You play to win the game. Hello?” The object of the game is to win. 6 teams have won games at a better rate than the Bruins, yet the Bruins would have home ice throughout the playoffs. That’s exceptionally stupid.

Boston is 24-8 while Carolina is 20-16 in games that aren't decided using a drastic change to the rules that is completely non-existent in the playoffs. No team has won at a better rate under the standard rules of the game than the Bruins. There is nothing exceptionally stupid about discounting the importance of OT/shootout results when they are played using a completely different rulebook than the rulebook that will be used throughout the playoffs. If the regular season is about determining which team should be favored when 3 on 3 and shootouts are removed from the rule book, then Boston absolutely should be ahead of the Hurricanes.

In a league with back to backs and 82 games in a season, I have no problem changing the rules of OT to encourage scoring and bring about a quick resolution. I'd prefer 5 on 5 for ten minutes and then a tie with no loser point. I'd prefer a 3 point system with the current rules (3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT/shootout win and 1 pt for OT/shootout loss). But all in all I don't have much issue with the current system because ending regular season games somewhat quickly is a necessity. But that doesn't mean that results under a drastically different set of rules should be exactly like wins under the normal set of rules and the set of rules we use throughout all of a playoff game.

To bring the conversation to Mr Edwards' sport, the NFL doesn't switch to 7 on 7 for a brief OT period followed by a field goal contest to determine the W/L after a regulation tie.

 

[Dbrownss]

But he doesn't when you look at his actual usage. He draws into the wing with ROR/Perron because Berube is very obviously trying to create an evenly balanced attack where your 3rd line can go out and dominate.

But he is generally not getting top 6 minutes even when he is on that line. Against San Jose he was 7th among Blues forwards in TOI. Against Buffalo he was 8th. Against NYR he was 9th. For the season, Sanfords TOI/GP is 12th among Blues forwards and 10th among the currently-healthy roster. If you just look at the lines posted on twitter, he is "in the top 6." If you actually examine how Berube is deploying our forward groups, he isn't in the top 6.

I just don't get this narrative that a forward who is 12th on the team in TOI/GP and 10+ healthy scratches is a top 6 forward.

Because he's skating with Orielly and Perron. That is the top 6 regardless of TOI. I understand what your saying and you're correct but I don't think it's incorrect to say he's skating in the top 6 either.

 

[Brian39]

Discussing the expansion draft, I think there is some great conversation here. I also think that a lot of it will be moot by the time we actually have to make our selections. A player we all think will still be here by 2021 will likely be gone. If no one is gone from the roster, then one of those guys we all thought was a sure-thing to protect will have regressed or been pushed down the lineup and be expendable.

With that said, we appear to be in really good shape for the expansion draft. We should be able to protect all of our "must keep" guys and Army's avoidance of NMCs means that we shouldn't be 'forced' to protect a guy who is underperforming. We should be in good position to work with Seattle on an agreement if that is the route we want to go, because we have the flexibility to protect younger guys and "dare" them to take a lengthy/expensive contract of a guy exiting his prime or the flexibility to force them to choose between a depth guy or a guy with just 1 year left on his deal. Binner is a UFA in that same summer, so we will either be locking him up for several years (and making Husso expendable) or he won't be under contract at the time of the draft and we can protect Husso in case he walks.

I bring this up a lot, but it can't be emphasized how well Army has constructed this roster from a contracts and cap management standpoint. Despite how popular it was to bash Army for giving out trade protection, he has consistently not offered bulletproof trade/move protection. Assuming we extend Petro (and the subsequent moves needed to get into cap compliance next season), we are incredibly well positioned to keep our group together.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

Boston is 24-8 while Carolina is 20-16 in games that aren't decided using a drastic change to the rules that is completely non-existent in the playoffs. No team has won at a better rate under the standard rules of the game than the Bruins. There is nothing exceptionally stupid about discounting the importance of OT/shootout results when they are played using a completely different rulebook than the rulebook that will be used throughout the playoffs. If the regular season is about determining which team should be favored when 3 on 3 and shootouts are removed from the rule book, then Boston absolutely should be ahead of the Hurricanes.

In a league with back to backs and 82 games in a season, I have no problem changing the rules of OT to encourage scoring and bring about a quick resolution. I'd prefer 5 on 5 for 10 minutes and then a tie with no loser point. I'd prefer a 3 point system with the current rules (3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT/shootout win and 1 pt for OT/shootout loss). But All in all I don't have much issue with the current system because ending regular season games somewhat quickly is a necessity. But that doesn't mean that results under a drastically different set of rules should be exactly like wins under the normal set of rules and the set of rules we use throughout all of a playoff game.

To bring the conversation to Mr Edwards' sport, the NFL doesn't switch to 7 on 7 for a brief OT period followed by a field goal contest to determine the W/L after a regulation tie.

I wish I could like this post more than once.

People bemoan the “loser point” (which isn’t what it is) and completely ignore that OT is a complete gimmck.

 

[Brian39]

When Parayko is ready to play I’d like to see us send Gunnar to SA. He hasn’t played in a month and only played twice in over 6 weeks. He could use some consistent ice time down there to find his game.

And Miko has looked good and could conceivably help this year. It would give us chance to see what Miko looks like with guys other than Borts to help us evaluate.

There is chance Gunnar gets claimed but if so that clears $1.75mm off next years cap which isn’t all bad.

I'm not at all in favor of sending Gunnar to SA for a few reasons.

1: He would almost certainly get picked up on waivers. He is half a year removed from doing a good job as Petro's partner in the Stanley Cup Final. He was fine in that role when playing it this season and was fine on the 3rd pairing when playing that role. He isn't flashy and he has health issues, but he is absolutely an NHL D man. Passing him trough waivers means he isn't going to be part of the organization for playoffs and our top 8 D is better with him than without him.

2: His salary isn't a concern. At $1.75M per year, it isn't a concern for this year's cap. It is also very moveable in the summer if we decide to move on for next year.

3: Mikkola should be playing every game. I'm fine paying Gunnar to sit in the press box when the D is completely healthy. I don't want Mikkola sitting inthe press box. I don't really want him and Bortz alternating games and I don't want Bortz sitting every/most nights.

So to summarize, when Parayko returns (assuming everyone else is healthy), I'd rather carry 8 D and 13 forwards if Mikkola is still playing every night or I would rather let him log big minutes in SA, calling him up to leapfrog Gunnar for ice time when we have another injury.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I'm not at all in favor of sending Gunnar to SA for a few reasons.

1: He would almost certainly get picked up on waivers. He is half a year removed from doing a good job as Petro's partner in the Stanley Cup Final. He was fine in that role when playing it this season and was fine on the 3rd pairing when playing that role. He isn't flashy and he has health issues, but he is absolutely an NHL D man. Passing him trough waivers means he isn't going to be part of the organization for playoffs and our top 8 D is better with him than without him.

2: His salary isn't a concern. At $1.75M per year, it isn't a concern for this year's cap. It is also very moveable in the summer if we decide to move on for next year.

3: Mikkola should be playing every game. I'm fine paying Gunnar to sit in the press box when the D is completely healthy. I don't want Mikkola sitting inthe press box. I don't really want him and Bortz alternating games and I don't want Bortz sitting every/most nights.

So to summarize, when Parayko returns (assuming everyone else is healthy), I'd rather carry 8 D and 13 forwards if Mikkola is still playing every night or I would rather let him log big minutes in SA, calling him up to leapfrog Gunnar for ice time when we have another injury.

I’m not familiar with the rules but couldn’t Gunnarsson go to San Antonio on a conditioning trip?

 

[542365]

Boston is 24-8 while Carolina is 20-16 in games that aren't decided using a drastic change to the rules that is completely non-existent in the playoffs. No team has won at a better rate under the standard rules of the game than the Bruins. There is nothing exceptionally stupid about discounting the importance of OT/shootout results when they are played using a completely different rulebook than the rulebook that will be used throughout the playoffs. If the regular season is about determining which team should be favored when 3 on 3 and shootouts are removed from the rule book, then Boston absolutely should be ahead of the Hurricanes.

In a league with back to backs and 82 games in a season, I have no problem changing the rules of OT to encourage scoring and bring about a quick resolution. I'd prefer 5 on 5 for ten minutes and then a tie with no loser point. I'd prefer a 3 point system with the current rules (3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT/shootout win and 1 pt for OT/shootout loss). But all in all I don't have much issue with the current system because ending regular season games somewhat quickly is a necessity. But that doesn't mean that results under a drastically different set of rules should be exactly like wins under the normal set of rules and the set of rules we use throughout all of a playoff game.

To bring the conversation to Mr Edwards' sport, the NFL doesn't switch to 7 on 7 for a brief OT period followed by a field goal contest to determine the W/L after a regulation tie.

Every other major sport beside soccer uses Wins/Losses to determine record. I don’t agree with the NHL’s use of a shootout, or 3 on 3, but that’s how they’ve decided to make sure every game has a winner so that’s just the way things are. The NFL has similar “first one to score wins” overtime system(with the first possession nuance that didn’t use to exist) and if you lose, then you get a loss. You don’t get half a loss like the NHL. If you lose in the 13th inning in baseball it’s no different than losing in 9, which is the correct way things should be.

Ideally games would end in a tie if nobody scores in OT, but thats obviously not the case. Besides, it’s not like the shootout is a surprise. If they suck at it, get better at it. It’s part of the game.

Teams absolutely should not get an advantage in the playoffs because it took them longer to lose than other teams. That’s moronic. Teams that win the most f***ing games, however they’re decided, should receive that advantage. Every other league has figured this out. It’s not that complicated. Win the f***ing game.

 

[Brian39]

I’m not familiar with the rules but couldn’t Gunnarsson go to San Antonio on a conditioning trip?

Yes, but @Blueston mentioned the possibility of him getting claimed, so I assumed that he was talking about a long term assignment and not a conditioning assignment. I would have no problem with a conditioning assignment, but I doubt Gunnar is all that interested in riding the bus and would prefer to just continue practicing and sitting in the press box here.

 

[Brian39]

Every other major sport beside soccer uses Wins/Losses to determine record. I don’t agree with the NHL’s use of a shootout, or 3 on 3, but that’s how they’ve decided to make sure every game has a winner so that’s just the way things are. The NFL has similar “first one to score wins” overtime system(with the first possession nuance that didn’t use to exist) and if you lose, then you get a loss. You don’t get half a loss like the NHL. If you lose in the 13th inning in baseball it’s no different than losing in 9, which is the correct way things should be.

Ideally games would end in a tie if nobody scores in OT, but thats obviously not the case. Besides, it’s not like the shootout is a surprise. If they suck at it, get better at it. It’s part of the game.

Teams absolutely should not get an advantage in the playoffs because it took them longer to lose than other teams. That’s moronic. Teams that win the most ****ing games, however they’re decided, should receive that advantage. Every other league has figured this out. It’s not that complicated. Win the ****ing game.

And no other major sport drastically changes the rules of play for that overtime period.

The NFL is still 11 on 11 with each team needing to get 10 yards in 4 downs following all the same rules. They don't switch to 7 on 7 to encourage offense. At the end of the overtime session, they don't employ some type of skills competition to ensure a winner. A win is a win and a loss is a loss because you are playing the same game you were playing for the first 60 minutes.

The NBA has identical rules for OT as the first 4 quarters. They don't remove players from the court for OT. They don't have a 3 point competition to determine a winner after the first 5 minute OT session. A win is a win and a loss is a loss because you are playing the same game you were playing for the first 60 minutes.

The MLB has identical rules in innings 10+ as it did for innings 1-9. They don't remove an infielder and an outfielder to open up more spots where a guy can land a hit. They don't start everyone off on a 2-0 pitch count to encourage base runners. They don't change the strike zone to make it harder for pitchers to strike a guy out. They don't go to a home run derby when the game is still tied at the end of the 10th. A win is a win and a loss is a loss because you are playing the same game you were for the first 9 innings.

The NHL drastically changes the rules of the game in OT. 40% of the skaters are removed from play. And then if it is still tied after 5 minutes there is a shootout. When you lose in the OT or a shootout, you are losing a game that is incredibly different than the game you play in regulation and the entirety of the playoffs. The point for an OT loss isn't about "taking longer to lose." It is about the fact that you are losing a completely different game than the one you played for 60 minutes. 4 on 4 roller hockey is closer to 5 on 5 ice hockey than the 3 on 3 overtime.

Personally, I would most prefer a pure W-L-T system where we don't change any of the rules for OT. That would hands down be the closest thing to the system the other sport use that you want the NHL to go to. But if we are going to implement an OT system drastically different than other sports, it makes complete sense to not use the exact same standings system as other sports.

 

[542365]

And no other major sport drastically changes the rules of play for that overtime period.

The NFL is still 11 on 11 with each team needing to get 10 yards in 4 downs following all the same rules. They don't switch to 7 on 7 to encourage offense. At the end of the overtime session, they don't employ some type of skills competition to ensure a winner. A win is a win and a loss is a loss because you are playing the same game you were playing for the first 60 minutes.

The NBA has identical rules for OT as the first 4 quarters. They don't remove players from the court for OT. They don't have a 3 point competition to determine a winner after the first 5 minute OT session. A win is a win and a loss is a loss because you are playing the same game you were playing for the first 60 minutes.

The MLB has identical rules in innings 10+ as it did for innings 1-9. They don't remove an infielder and an outfielder to open up more spots where a guy can land a hit. They don't start everyone off on a 2-0 pitch count to encourage base runners. They don't change the strike zone to make it harder for pitchers to strike a guy out. They don't go to a home run derby when the game is still tied at the end of the 10th. A win is a win and a loss is a loss because you are playing the same game you were for the first 9 innings.

The NHL drastically changes the rules of the game in OT. 40% of the skaters are removed from play. And then if it is still tied after 5 minutes there is a shootout. When you lose in the OT or a shootout, you are losing a game that is incredibly different than the game you play in regulation and the entirety of the playoffs. The point for an OT loss isn't about "taking longer to lose." It is about the fact that you are losing a completely different game than the one you played for 60 minutes. 4 on 4 roller hockey is closer to 5 on 5 ice hockey than the 3 on 3 overtime.

Personally, I would most prefer a pure W-L-T system where we don't change any of the rules for OT. That would hands down be the closest thing to the system the other sport use that you want the NHL to go to. But if we are going to implement an OT system drastically different than other sports, it makes complete sense to not use the exact same standings system as other sports.

I agree W-L-T system with 5v5 for 5-10 minutes in OT is the best, most sensible system. I just think that making regulation wins the tie breaker is enough incentive for teams to win in regulation. They don’t need this point for losing in OT. Should get nothing for a loss regardless the circumstances.

 

[Xerloris]

But he doesn't when you look at his actual usage. He draws into the wing with ROR/Perron because Berube is very obviously trying to create an evenly balanced attack where your 3rd line can go out and dominate.

But he is generally not getting top 6 minutes even when he is on that line. Against San Jose he was 7th among Blues forwards in TOI. Against Buffalo he was 8th. Against NYR he was 9th. For the season, Sanfords TOI/GP is 12th among Blues forwards and 10th among the currently-healthy roster. If you just look at the lines posted on twitter, he is "in the top 6." If you actually examine how Berube is deploying our forward groups, he isn't in the top 6.

I just don't get this narrative that a forward who is 12th on the team in TOI/GP and 10+ healthy scratches is a top 6 forward.

It's because people still can't comprehend that the # of the line you're on doesn't mean shit.

 

[Dbrownss]

It's because people still can't comprehend that the # of the line you're on doesn't mean ****.

So there's no difference then skating with Orielly/Perron and DLR/Barbashev?

Seems people read more into a complaint of Sanford continuing to get ANY ice time with Sanford getting TOP 6 ice time. That was not the case.

 

[Ranksu]

My vote is for Matchbox 20 21

What does it mean i dont get it.

 

[Brockon]

What does it mean i dont get it.

Matchbox 20 (an alternative rock band big around the late 2000s) front man's name is Robert Thomas.

 

[Brian39]

What does it mean i dont get it.

The lead singer of the band "Matchbox Twenty" is named Rob Thomas. They were a pretty popular band in the 90s and the lead singer was the guest star in Santana's song "Smooth" which was a hugely popular song in 1999. Steen is #20 and Bozak is #21.

So the "Matchbox 20" portion of the nickname covers Thomas and Steen, while the 21 includes Bozak.

Edit: Robert Thomas now has a solo career, which included a concert in St. Louis this past fall where our Robert Thomas brought the Cup on stage.

Blues' Robert Thomas joins singer Rob Thomas onstage with Stanley Cup

 

[Brian39]

Matchbox 20 (an alternative rock band big around the late 2000s) front man's name is Robert Thomas.

This made me feel old as hell, but Matchbox Twenty released their most successful album in 1996 and the song Smooth was from 1999. They were at the height of their popularity two full decades ago.

 

[tkenney65]

But he doesn't when you look at his actual usage. He draws into the wing with ROR/Perron because Berube is very obviously trying to create an evenly balanced attack where your 3rd line can go out and dominate.

But he is generally not getting top 6 minutes even when he is on that line. Against San Jose he was 7th among Blues forwards in TOI. Against Buffalo he was 8th. Against NYR he was 9th. For the season, Sanfords TOI/GP is 12th among Blues forwards and 10th among the currently-healthy roster. If you just look at the lines posted on twitter, he is "in the top 6." If you actually examine how Berube is deploying our forward groups, he isn't in the top 6.

I just don't get this narrative that a forward who is 12th on the team in TOI/GP and 10+ healthy scratches is a top 6 forward.

Brian39 nails it with the above post. It is more about how Chief uses him minutes-wise than being on the "2nd Line". Sanford's inconsistent play since the beginning of the year is the reason for the 10+ scratches regardless of what line he is on. Right now he is playing well and should be in the lineup. But honestly even if he was on the 3rd or 4th line all year the noise level here regarding his play would be just as high. He just seems to be a polarizing type player on this forum.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I wish I could like this post more than once.

People bemoan the “loser point” (which isn’t what it is) and completely ignore that OT is a complete gimmck.

All game should be 3 points. That would really put a premium on regulation wins.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I'm not at all in favor of sending Gunnar to SA for a few reasons.

1: He would almost certainly get picked up on waivers. He is half a year removed from doing a good job as Petro's partner in the Stanley Cup Final. He was fine in that role when playing it this season and was fine on the 3rd pairing when playing that role. He isn't flashy and he has health issues, but he is absolutely an NHL D man. Passing him trough waivers means he isn't going to be part of the organization for playoffs and our top 8 D is better with him than without him.

2: His salary isn't a concern. At $1.75M per year, it isn't a concern for this year's cap. It is also very moveable in the summer if we decide to move on for next year.

3: Mikkola should be playing every game. I'm fine paying Gunnar to sit in the press box when the D is completely healthy. I don't want Mikkola sitting inthe press box. I don't really want him and Bortz alternating games and I don't want Bortz sitting every/most nights.

So to summarize, when Parayko returns (assuming everyone else is healthy), I'd rather carry 8 D and 13 forwards if Mikkola is still playing every night or I would rather let him log big minutes in SA, calling him up to leapfrog Gunnar for ice time when we have another injury.

I’m not convinced he would get claimed but if he does I don’t think he is huge loss. He is fine but he is our 8th best D at best at this point. We can always find someone if we think we need someone better than what we have in SA.

But regardless of that, I think you underestimate the value of paring his contract. We need at least 6mm in combined salary savings and cap growth to fit in Petro raise if we bridge Dunn (bc of Schenn and Faulk raises). If we get rid of Gunnar and Sanford and convince JayBo to take less money then if cap rises we may be able to keep everyone else. It would be tight but depending on where some of the contacts shake out could perhaps allow us to keep Bozo and Allen (which seems like a positive amazingly) and Steen (who has NTC and likely wouldn’t want to go anywhere). Every $ counts if we want to keep band together.