2024-2025 Blues Trade Proposals Thread.

[Brian39]

That contract is not appealing at all. Plus it's strapped with tons of bonuses and and a full NMC

Specifically, there is a $10M bonus due 7/1/25, no bonus in 2026, and then $5M bonus every July for the last 5 years of the deal. Full NMC from 7/1/25 through the duration of the contract. $11.6M AAV through the end of the 2031/32 season (one year longer than the Thomas contract).

Is there risk? Absolutely. But what is your honest assessment of his floor? He's scored at a 30+ goal pace in each of his 6 NHL seasons since entering the league in his age 20 season. He's hit 30+ goals each of his last 3 seasons, he has 438 points in 434 career games, he has a 102 point season on his resume and an 89 point season on his resume. He's pretty damn good defensively. I get that there are consistency issues and a recent (but growing) dip in production, but the narrative about him sure sounds a lot worse than the 8 goals and 26 points he actually has through 27 games this year.

Honestly, what is the non-injury worst case scenario? That he's "only" a consistent 30 goal, 80 point guy instead of the 35-40 goal, 90+ point guy they hoped they were getting? I get that 30 goals and 80 points isn't enough for $11.6M AAV. But 6+ years of a Thomas/Petey 1-2 punch down the middle is a pretty good way to spend $19.725M in cap space even if Petey is underperforming his AAV by a few million. If you can get Petey without giving up Dvorsky then you are talking about being completely set down the middle through 2031.

I doubt that the Canucks would actually move Petey for anything less than a boatload, but if he is available his contract isn't really concerning to me.

Edit: the cap is either going to skyrocket by the start of the 2026/27 season or we are going to have a lockout. Unless the owners try to lower the player share of HRR below the current 50%, we're talking about a roughly $20M cap jump in the next couple years. If the cap was still calculated by HRR and not the artificial ceiling set from the COVID agreement, we'd have a cap around $105M for 2025/26. Barring a CBA negotiation contentious enough to cost a season, we're going back to an HRR linked 50/50 split for 2026/27 and beyond. Modest growth between now and then will have the cap around $110M.

$11.6M would be 10.5% of a $110M cap. That is the equivalent of a $9.24M AAV against today's cap. We're about to see a massive spike in contract values.

The 2010s was dominated by the teams that got a bunch of back-diving 10+ year deals inked before the 2013 CBA eliminated them. I think there is a very, very good chance that the 'every year contenders' of the late 2020s and early 2030s are going to be the teams that have guys on the back half of 8 year deals signed before this summer when contract values start to explode.

I really think that right now is the best time in a decade to accumulate long term deals for players in their early/mid 20s.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Specifically, there is a $10M bonus due 7/1/25, no bonus in 2026, and then $5M bonus every July for the last 5 years of the deal. Full NMC from 7/1/25 through the duration of the contract. $11.6M AAV through the end of the 2031/32 season (one year longer than the Thomas contract).

Is there risk? Absolutely. But what is your honest assessment of his floor? He's scored at a 30+ goal pace in each of his 6 NHL seasons since entering the league in his age 20 season. He's hit 30+ goals each of his last 3 seasons, he has 438 points in 434 career games, he has a 102 point season on his resume and an 89 point season on his resume. He's pretty damn good defensively. I get that there are consistency issues and a recent (but growing) dip in production, but the narrative about him sure sounds a lot worse than the 8 goals and 26 points he actually has through 27 games this year.

Honestly, what is the non-injury worst case scenario? That he's "only" a consistent 30 goal, 80 point guy instead of the 35-40 goal, 90+ point guy they hoped they were getting? I get that 30 goals and 80 points isn't enough for $11.6M AAV. But 6+ years of a Thomas/Petey 1-2 punch down the middle is a pretty good way to spend $19.725M in cap space even if Petey is underperforming his AAV by a few million. If you can get Petey without giving up Dvorsky then you are talking about being completely set down the middle through 2031.

I doubt that the Canucks would actually move Petey for anything less than a boatload, but if he is available his contract isn't really concerning to me.

Already posted that hahaha

 

[StlBigFly]

A shame Debrincat has 2.5 yrs left and also possibly hates us.

I feel he’d be the perfect short term addition if he had .5 years left. Maybe even possible if he had 1.5 left.

You could put Buchnevich back at center:

Neighbors - Thomas - Debrincat
Holloway - Buch - Kyrou

Is a fun top 6. So many different ways both lines can score regularly.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

A shame Debrincat has 2.5 yrs left and also possibly hates us.

I feel he’d be the perfect short term addition if he had .5 years left. Maybe even possible if he had 1.5 left.

You could put Buchnevich back at center:

Neighbors - Thomas - Debrincat
Holloway - Buch - Kyrou

Is a fun top 6. So many different ways both lines can score regularly.

We're not putting Buch back at center

 

[StlBigFly]

We're not putting Buch back at center

You’d hope not right. Only way he’s doing that is if he has to and nobody wants that.

But at the same time; I firmly believe the biggest reason the project had mild success and not more is because when Buchnevich is a center he rips a huge hole in our winger depth chart.

If you make a move that would close the winger depth chart hole that occurs when buch is a center I think you’d have amazingly well balanced attack. Buch was excellent at center for a large stretch of games because he played so far behind the puck. With Holloway and Kyrou it is a perfect counterattacking line.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

You’d hope not right. Only way he’s doing that is if he has to and nobody wants that.

But at the same time; I firmly believe the biggest reason the project had mild success and not more is because when Buchnevich is a center he rips a huge hole in our winger depth chart.

If you make a move that would close the winger depth chart hole that occurs when buch is a center I think you’d have amazingly well balanced attack. Buch was excellent at center for a large stretch of games because he played so far behind the puck. With Holloway and Kyrou it is a perfect counterattacking line.

No, literally. Monty states it pretty clear Buchy will not play center unless there's severe injury issues or equipment issues.

 

[StlBigFly]

No, literally. Monty states it pretty clear Buchy will not play center unless there's severe injury issues or equipment issues.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. He will do it if he has to, and nobody wants that.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Yes, that is exactly what I said. He will do it if he has to, and nobody wants that.

And I'm saying we're not going to trade for a winger to force him into the center role. It's only going to be for severe necessity. Not manufactured necessity.

 

[StlBigFly]

And I'm saying we're not going to trade for a winger to force him into the center role. It's only going to be for severe necessity. Not manufactured necessity.

I think it’s a healthy debate:

Do the Blues just stick with what they have?

I think I’m in this camp. Maybe just be hyper opportunistic.

Or should the blues look to add?

Whether it’s somebody younger or not, I think there’s a lot of cool concepts. Some folks think it could be a good draft to move the 1st.
So if we just assume we move a first….the Blues should consider half a dozen different options or more. You’d consider using it to adjust rhd, another young player, or whatever the market is providing in the near term. You could look at the pros and cons of so many various directions and have a map of each future.

I think when all the options would be presented, that the option I’ve presented with buch at center probably gets us a lot of bang for our buck. Everybody wants a young center. Meanwhile, non-elite but bonafide top 6 wingers are relatively cheap. This person would slot to Thomas’ right and with neighbors, so you’d like somebody with elite finish, somebody who can play with some patience, but also pace. Where you want Bolduc to be in a few years, except it sure would be helpful if he held his stick the other way around.

If there are half a dozen options where we trade a 1st going through some Monte Carlo, Buch at center with winger addition should be one. It could be the depth chart that is most potent when comparing a range of options, and if not, it pushed a different one to be even better. No reason to be close minded. The process is strengthened by variation.

I find it funny a lot of people are sharing their team Russia projections for the tournament they’re missing - tons of them have Buch as 1C or 2C.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I think it’s a healthy debate:

Do the Blues just stick with what they have?

I think I’m in this camp. Maybe just be hyper opportunistic.

Or should the blues look to add?

Whether it’s somebody younger or not, I think there’s a lot of cool concepts. Some folks think it could be a good draft to move the 1st.
So if we just assume we move a first….the Blues should consider half a dozen different options or more. You’d consider using it to adjust rhd, another young player, or whatever the market is providing in the near term. You could look at the pros and cons of so many various directions and have a map of each future.

I think when all the options would be presented, that the option I’ve presented with buch at center probably gets us a lot of bang for our buck. Everybody wants a young center. Meanwhile, non-elite but bonafide top 6 wingers are relatively cheap. This person would slot to Thomas’ right and with neighbors, so you’d like somebody with elite finish, somebody who can play with some patience, but also pace. Where you want Bolduc to be in a few years, except it sure would be helpful if he held his stick the other way around.

If there are half a dozen options where we trade a 1st going through some Monte Carlo, Buch at center with winger addition should be one. It could be the depth chart that is most potent when comparing a range of options, and if not, it pushed a different one to be even better. No reason to be close minded. The process is strengthened by variation.

I find it funny a lot of people are sharing their team Russia projections for the tournament they’re missing - tons of them have Buch as 1C or 2C.

We tried Buchy at center. Didn't work. We have fantastic young winger depth. Trading 1st for another winger, unless absolute superstar, seems like opposite of what we should be doing.