2024-2025 Blues Trade Proposals Thread.

[StlBigFly]

In the last 8 months the team has replaced the entire left side of the defense, added a top 6 winger, and added 3 depth forwards (while moving out a few). I don't know what to tell you if you believe that the organization hasn't been addressing holes in the depth chart. Many of these pieces (Broberg, Holloway, and Fowler) were brought in at the cost of a little of the future, so I'm not quite sure how they don't fit your vision of what the organization should be doing. Are you advocating that we trade this year's 1st on a rental? If your stance is that the time to do that has passed, was there any point in the season where you were advocating for that?

We've fallen short of the expectations/goals this year for sure. Buch has fallen well short of expectations. So has Faulk. So did Saad. So has Leddy (due to injury). But I don't see how you can reasonably suggest that we should have seen all of that coming. Saad and Buch have scored at a rate that is 10+ goals below their historically steady production and both of them went from being good defensive players to below average ones. Faulk is scoring less despite being in more positions to generate offense and is defending at a lower level than in the past. Leddy was hurt for half the season and obviously couldn't contribute anything while out. We would absolutely be competing for a playoff spot if those 4 veterans had contributed at/near the reasonable expectation for their game.

It is also very much true that we have holes. We don't have an actual 3C and the bottom 6 scoring depth is mediocre-to-poor. But those were very much not the only holes heading into the season. And while those holes 100% would have prevented us from being a Cup contender, I they weren't large enough to prevent us from contending to finish 7th or 8th in the West if all the vets were playing up to expectation.



Who?

Retaining on Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, or Buch shouldn't be remotely considered and there are very few contenders (if any) with the cap space to fit them all right now. Are you comfortable taking a well-below-market value return to get them out ASAP to improve the draft pick?

Schenn has a full NTC. So does Faulk. Fowler has a 4 team trade list. Binner has an 18 team no trade list that can effectively be wielded to prevent a trade to all the teams that have goaltending issues/questions. Each have term beyond this year that makes retention painful. Are you comfortable taking a below-market-value return to get them out ASAP to improve the draft pick?

Holloway is playing great and moving him would probably help our lottery odds. But at 23 years old do you not view him as part of a long term solution? What about Broberg and Neighbours?

Who left is playing at a high level? The next highest scorer was Saad and you are critical about waiving him.

I don't understand the rush or confusion here. A bunch of players are playing below expectation, which is the biggest reason the team has fallen short of expectations (which were to simply compete for a playoff spot and maybe make it). The team is falling down the standings in the midst of a slump. Why are we rushing a fire sale to ensure that we limit the market of potential buyers?

I don’t believe that if we added 1 or 2 amazing 22-23 year olds to the existing group that we will become a contender with our existing core.

Our group is far too easy to play against, the mechanisms we use to score are not reliable - we cannot simplify our game because we have guys who don’t do that, and lastly, the roster hole that is exploited by our opponents makes it hard to evaluate the state of the team and individual contributions. It will be difficult to find icetime for young skaters if half our group gets caved in any given night.

It will be about 3-4 years until there are 22-23 year olds, since they’re 18-20 now.

One path:

Trading away one piece of the current group

-raises the likelihood of drafting premium talent
-does it matter if the team is .400 or .450 to you for 3-4 years? What if it was going to be that anyway?
-you’re forcing an outcome that has baked in upside
-you already have a roster hole and you’re accepting that; not filling it, developing from within to fill it, adjusting your style of play to one that is not as vulnerable.
-even if the draft picks and trade return bust - you’ve defined your problem and are directly solving it by playing developmental hockey.
-you’re giving the future group more firepower.

If we do not trade anybody and forge ahead:

-we jeopardize the ability to draft premium talent
-it is difficult to develop young skaters when in contention; important icetime goes to reliable guys.
-we can prove something to ourselves finishing close to playoff contention.
-we probably have to spend some of the futures to find a winger or 2C to complete the group and push it to contention. I will not accept that a 20 year old will do this. Maybe Snuggerud does help a lot in this area, but it’s really nuts to put 10 years of the franchise on the back of a 20 year old who isn’t even under contract. I mean I’m always down to yolo I guess so maybe I’m okay with this.
-In 3 years: if our current group plus a few 22 year olds isn’t enough then you’re going to be drafting in the middle for the whole 10 years while potentially contending for 0 of them.

Robert Thomas is probably my favorite blue of all time and probably the most skilled we’ve ever had. He isn’t hard to play against. Jordan Kyrou is superlative at a few things, league best at them. He’s not hard to play against. Schenn is kind of hard to play against, but he’s such a classy and swell guy - he’s only hard to play against if you really cross the line with him. Parayko is way too easy to play against. Buchnevich started his career here perfect head butting Lawson Crouse. Since then? Easy to play against. Etc. This group does -not- have the ability to make opponents uncomfortable. It does -not- have the ability to grind down the opposition. It has to really just get lucky with the puck - pray one of the 20 shots towards their net in the first 10 minutes doesn’t squeak through and pray some of the rush chances convert. We are -not- one 21 year old Dvorsky away from being a contender. We don’t manufacture goals the way winning teams manufacture goals.

If I were gm nobody would be untouchable and I would take the biggest future package for any one skater from the core. I’m not biased as to who. Any one of them, even Robert Thomas. Whatever is the best relative return. One of Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, Buchnevich, or Schenn would be traded for futures. The rest would stay. The goal of the trade is the future, so any of those guys who don’t return a future wouldn’t be traded. Buchnevich probably wouldn’t be the one heading out - he probably doesn’t return a lot. It’s probably Kyrou, Thomas, or Parayko. The good ones. Because my desire is the good return.

Your future in my scenario is much brighter:
-the chances you receive franchise defining talent goes from very low to moderate
-your team will play developmental hockey with guys who need development
-you’ll hopefully end up a tad bit harder to play against. Depending on who is traded you could simplify the entire team game and begin to build a solid foundation.
-you’ll open up the future space needed if any of these prospects do hit. You’d have the flexibility to try lots of things for lots of different timeframes.
-you still have a tremendous amount of young and old talent.
-there’s a real chance you’re going to be bad anyway, in this case you get none of the above benefits for the exact same pain.

 

[Reality Czech]

I don’t believe that if we added 1 or 2 amazing 22-23 year olds to the existing group that we will become a contender with our existing core.

Our group is far too easy to play against, the mechanisms we use to score are not reliable - we cannot simplify our game because we have guys who don’t do that, and lastly, the roster hole that is exploited by our opponents makes it hard to evaluate the state of the team and individual contributions.

It will be about 3-4 years until there are 22-23 year olds, since they’re 18-20 now.

One path:

Trading away one piece of the current group

-raises the likelihood of drafting premium talent
-does it matter if the team is .400 or .450 to you for 3-4 years? What if it was going to be that anyway?
-you’re forcing an outcome that has baked in upside
-you already have a roster hole and you’re accepting that; not filling it, developing from within to fill it.
-even if the draft picks and trade return bust - you’ve defined your problem and are directly solving it by playing developmental hockey.
-you’re giving the future group more firepower.

If we do not trade anybody and forge ahead:

-we jeopardize the ability to draft premium talent
-it is difficult to develop young skaters when in contention; important icetime goes to reliable guys.
-we can prove something to ourselves finishing close to playoff contention.
-we probably have to spend some of the futures to find a winger or 2C to complete the group and push it to contention. I will not accept that a 20 year old will do this.
-if our current group plus a few 22 year olds isn’t enough then you’re going to be drafting in the middle for the whole 10 years while potentially contending for 0 of them.

Robert Thomas is probably my favorite blue of all time and probably the most skilled we’ve ever had. He isn’t hard to play against. Jordan Kyrou is superlative at a few things, league best at them. He’s not hard to play against. Schenn is kind of hard to play against, but he’s such a classy and swell guy - he’s only hard to play against if you really cross the line with him. Parayko is too easy to play against. Buchnevich started his career here perfect head butting Lawson Crouse. Since then? Easy to play against. Etc. This group does -not- have the ability to make opponents uncomfortable. It does -not- have the ability to grind down the opposition. It has to really just get lucky with the puck.

I agree with some of what you've posted but a few things I don't.

First of all, Thomas isn't anywhere near the most skilled player we've ever had. He has a chance to be one of our best players all time but it really depends on if he can continue developing and play at his highest level more consistently, especially on the defensive side. ROR is who he should aspire to be but it takes a lot of determination, experience and talent to become the type of player he was for us in 2019.

Secondly, high draft picks are great but we only had two top 10 picks leading up to winning the Cup, one of which wasn't really a factor for us in the long run. We were able to trade for two high picks in Schenn and Bouwmeester, but we were also able to pick top talent later in the draft in Tarasenko, Schwartz, Perron, Parayko, etc. So it can be done.

Third, no one really knows what is going to happen. Unexpected things happen all the time in sports and there's no way to say if this core is good enough or not. Who knows what kind of an impact our prospects will have, or if we'll find another Schenn/Bouwmeester via trade or free agency. I think it's safe to say there will be a big trade at some point because it happens to every team, but you can't force it until the right opportunity comes up.

So to sum it up, just because it appears the team isn't good enough now doesn't mean things won't change in unexpected ways. I think being tough to play against is something that players can learn and succuss can become infectious. Once that 2019 team found its groove, pretty much everyone was on the same page and "playing the right way." There isn't only one formula to winning but all I know is making the wrong moves can hurt a team just as much as the right moves can help. As they say, patience is a virtue.

 

[Majorityof1]

I don’t believe that if we added 1 or 2 amazing 22-23 year olds to the existing group that we will become a contender with our existing core.

Our group is far too easy to play against, the mechanisms we use to score are not reliable - we cannot simplify our game because we have guys who don’t do that, and lastly, the roster hole that is exploited by our opponents makes it hard to evaluate the state of the team and individual contributions.

It will be about 3-4 years until there are 22-23 year olds, since they’re 18-20 now.

One path:

Trading away one piece of the current group

-raises the likelihood of drafting premium talent
-does it matter if the team is .400 or .450 to you for 3-4 years? What if it was going to be that anyway?
-you’re forcing an outcome that has baked in upside
-you already have a roster hole and you’re accepting that; not filling it, developing from within to fill it.
-even if the draft picks and trade return bust - you’ve defined your problem and are directly solving it by playing developmental hockey.
-you’re giving the future group more firepower.

If we do not trade anybody and forge ahead:

-we jeopardize the ability to draft premium talent
-it is difficult to develop young skaters when in contention; important icetime goes to reliable guys.
-we can prove something to ourselves finishing close to playoff contention.
-we probably have to spend some of the futures to find a winger or 2C to complete the group and push it to contention. I will not accept that a 20 year old will do this. Maybe Snuggerud does help a lot in this area, but it’s really nuts to put 10 years of the franchise on the back of a 20 year old who isn’t even under contract.
-In 3 years: if our current group plus a few 22 year olds isn’t enough then you’re going to be drafting in the middle for the whole 10 years while potentially contending for 0 of them.

Robert Thomas is probably my favorite blue of all time and probably the most skilled we’ve ever had. He isn’t hard to play against. Jordan Kyrou is superlative at a few things, league best at them. He’s not hard to play against. Schenn is kind of hard to play against, but he’s such a classy and swell guy - he’s only hard to play against if you really cross the line with him. Parayko is way too easy to play against. Buchnevich started his career here perfect head butting Lawson Crouse. Since then? Easy to play against. Etc. This group does -not- have the ability to make opponents uncomfortable. It does -not- have the ability to grind down the opposition. It has to really just get lucky with the puck - pray one of the 20 shots towards their net in the first 10 minutes doesn’t squeak through and pray some of the rush chances convert. We are -not- one 21 year old Dvorsky away from being a contender.

If I were gm nobody would be untouchable and I would take the biggest future package for any one skater from the core. I’m not biased as to who. Any one of them, even Robert Thomas. Whatever is the best relative return. One of Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, Buchnevich, or Schenn would be traded for futures. The rest would stay. The goal of the trade is the future, so any of those guys who don’t return a future wouldn’t be traded. Buchnevich probably wouldn’t be the one heading out - he probably doesn’t return a lot. It’s probably Kyrou, Thomas, or Parayko. The good ones. Because my desire is the good return.

Your future in my scenario is much brighter:
-the chances you receive franchise defining talent goes from very low to moderate
-your team will play developmental hockey with guys who need development
-you’ll hopefully end up a tad bit harder to play against. Depending on who is traded you could simplify the entire team game and begin to build a solid foundation.
-you’ll open up the future space needed if any of these prospects do hit. You’d have the flexibility to try lots of things for lots of different timeframes.
-you still have a tremendous amount of young and old talent.
-there’s a real chance you’re going to be bad anyway, in this case you get none of the above benefits for the exact same pain.

Your idea of hard to play against is antiquated. Toropchenko hits. Ask any NHL player if they'd rather play against a team of Toropchenkos or a team of Robert Thomases. Connor Mcdavid is the hardest guy in the league to play against, not Goony McGoonface.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You need a balance. More talent is always better IMO, but that Sunny/Barbie bash brothers combo in the Cup run played a major role. But, they were just physical, they with Steen played genuine good defense too. That Sharks series though, we just beat the crap out of them.

 

[Majorityof1]

You need a balance. More talent is always better IMO, but that Sunny/Barbie bash brothers combo in the Cup run played a major role. But, they were just physical, they with Steen played genuine good defense too. That Sharks series though, we just beat the crap out of them.

Barbashev is a top 6 now. Sunny was probably a good 3rd liner before slowing down. They were playing on our 4th line. It was the talent, not the physicality that made them a good 4th line as none of them would have been 4th liners on most teams. They were a good 3rd line playing as a 4th line. Allowing us to roll 4 lines and wear the other team out by having talent on the ice every second.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Barbashev is a top 6 now. Sunny was probably a good 3rd liner before slowing down. They were playing on our 4th line. It was the talent, not the physicality that made them a good 4th line as none of them would have been 4th liners on most teams. They were a good 3rd line playing as a 4th line. Allowing us to roll 4 lines and wear the other team out by having talent on the ice every second.

I agree, but of what made them as effective as they were, was their physical play. I do agree, you also want talent and not just guys like Cracknell.

The post you quoted didn't mention Toropchenko though, and it didn't say to prioritize physical guys without skill over guys with skill.

 

[Spektre]

Claiming they have the financials and using this as part of why makes no sense to me. You have to sell something you own for it's worth to give you money to spend. Or am I missing something here, specifically about this right here.

The franchise is profitable and backed up by people who are wealthy almost beyond comprehension. Just one of the minority owner's company generates over 40 billion per year. The value of the franchise is skyrocketing in value each year partially due to these facts.

It's impossible for me to believe a lower attendance during a scorched earth rebuild would come anywhere close to sinking the franchise/owner's group.

It's a moot point. The only way a full rebuild happens is through gross mismanagement at this point.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I agree, but of what made them as effective as they were, was their physical play. I do agree, you also want talent and not just guys like Cracknell.

The post you quoted didn't mention Toropchenko though, and it didn't say to prioritize physical guys without skill over guys with skill.

The physical nature of that line was of more value during playoffs because you get cumulative effect of beating on teams. In the regular season physical play isn’t as important bc you are just softening opponents up for whomever they play next.

 

[Majorityof1]

The franchise is profitable and backed up by people who are wealthy almost beyond comprehension. Just one of the minority owner's company generates over 40 billion per year. The value of the franchise is skyrocketing in value each year partially due to these facts.

Enterprise makes $40B in revenue. That is not profit. They have to pay their expenses. Enterprise is owned by a family, and a few of them are on the Blues ownership group, but not all. So they don't have access to all the profit.

Nothing you said speaks toward their willingness to cover financial deficits of a rebuild. If they wanted to put more money into the Blues, they wouldn't be part of a consortium. They would gave bought the team outright. Again, rich people don't get super rich by throwing away money because they have it.

 

[joe galiba]

Enterprise makes $40B in revenue. That is not profit. They have to pay their expenses. Enterprise is owned by a family, and a few of them are on the Blues ownership group, but not all. So they don't have access to all the profit.

Nothing you said speaks toward their willingness to cover financial deficits of a rebuild. If they wanted to put more money into the Blues, they wouldn't be part of a consortium. They would gave bought the team outright. Again, rich people don't get super rich by throwing away money because they have

I have never understood the idea that someone should lose money on an endeavor just to make someone else happy

 

[Brian39]

The franchise is profitable and backed up by people who are wealthy almost beyond comprehension. Just one of the minority owner's company generates over 40 billion per year. The value of the franchise is skyrocketing in value each year partially due to these facts.

It's impossible for me to believe a lower attendance during a scorched earth rebuild would come anywhere close to sinking the franchise/owner's group.

It's a moot point. The only way a full rebuild happens is through gross mismanagement at this point.

I don't think anyone believes or is arguing that $10M in annual losses from the Blues is going to cause the ownership group to declare bankruptcy. I think we all know that the ownership group has access to enough liquid assets to inject money into the team to cover losses. But millionaires and billionaires don't like losing money. No one bought into this ownership group for it to be a money pit and the reality is that even at our most profitable, the Blues franchise does not bring in the type of money that the large market teams do.

The team took out private loans during COVID to pay the bills instead of having owners invest personally. That is common practice, but it does demonstrate that there weren't years of huge profits post-Cup and demonstrates that owners weren't eager to take big financial losses. With the massive jump in valuation of pro sports teams, multiple years of sustained losses while the building is empty is exactly the type of thing that causes owners to bail and sell to people that view the team as a pure investment.

I don't think the Blues are at risk of that, but small and mid market teams are absolutely impacted by the bottom line and make hockey operations decisions based on that bottom line.

 

[BrokenFace]

I can't say how much the Blues make or lose on good or bad years for the ownership group. Honestly I wouldn't even know what to believe regarding that because sports team owners aren't exactly transparent with their financials, but I've always been highly skeptical of the messaging that the Blues can't stomach a heavy rebuild. The franchise was at close to a hypothetical worst case scenario being a hopeless basement team coming out of a full year league lockout with virtually no young players wearing the Note to get excited for. All while the team was still competing with an in market NFL team and a Cardinals team that had just won a world series. Not only did the franchise survive, but Stillman's group bought it just a few years after that complete mess. Now I'm supposed to believe the team can't survive another rebuild ever again? Even now that we have a more resilient fanbase with the cup? Even after the Rams left? Even after how much the franchise's value has risen since these owners bought it? I just don't buy that the overall franchise health would be at all jeopardized by a full rebuild. I also roll my eyes whenever anyone from the front office frames a rebuild as 5+ years of being in the basement. That's what a failed rebuild is, but that's the same outcome for always going for it when you shouldn't and falling. For every Buffalo or pre-McDavid Edmonton, there's also a Philadelphia or Calgary who just kept going for it with diminishing returns forever.

I'm not saying I want a rip-it-all-up rebuild, but the team would survive if we went that route. Everything we had to go through in the post-lockout years was worse than any kind of full rebuild we could go through now. And if anyone bought an NHL team thinking they would never have to withstand the team being bad enough to draft in the top 5 more then once within a few years, then they didn't look at the league before buying. Not saying it's impossible to win without drafting high, but the list of Cup winners, and even just the best regular season teams, speaks for itself.

tldr: I don't believe the owners about their dire finances. We could draft in the top 5 for 5 years straight and it would be fine.

 

[Mike Liut]

I agree, but of what made them as effective as they were, was their physical play. I do agree, you also want talent and not just guys like Cracknell.

The post you quoted didn't mention Toropchenko though, and it didn't say to prioritize physical guys without skill over guys with skill.

I’ve always thought that talent gets you to the playoffs, but physicality in the playoffs wins the cup.

 

[StlBigFly]

Hopefully somebody on the team reads that some random armchair gm on a forum called them soft and easy to play against. I think I’d prefer that description the least if I were them.

Your idea of hard to play against is antiquated. Toropchenko hits. Ask any NHL player if they'd rather play against a team of Toropchenkos or a team of Robert Thomases. Connor Mcdavid is the hardest guy in the league to play against, not Goony McGoonface.

I’ve watched about a dozen wild games this season and I’d highly recommend any blues fan do the same

Kaprisov is -impossibly- hard to play against. He isn’t a goon. He’s the opposite. He’s John wick.

Erickson-ek and Hartman are too. A lot of guys are. Hartman is a goon. Whatever. You need some guys who will win at all costs. This isn’t church.

The wild play like contenders. We play like we’re trying to get highlight reel goals. The wild actually get highlight reel goals because they work so hard. We do not often get goals, with our production being among the league worst.

There was a play Kyrou made, I think against the rangers, where he was flying on the forecheck, stripped the puck and scored. Maybe 2 months ago. That happens like once a month for Kyrou. This happens like 2 times a game for Kaprisov - maybe not the scoring part but the determined play.

The wild are better than us because they are hard to play against and the best example on their team is their most skilled guy. He plays with more determination than Kyrou and Thomas combined any night of the week. It isn’t close. He isn’t a giant dude - probably 5’9, but to be fair - he has a really well developed core and that will make him a bit more elite than some of our more slender builds - but still.

Orielly was hard to play against.

Perron was hard to play against.

Pietrangelo was hard to play against.

Sunny is like this but Father Time exists.

None of those guys are goons.

Maybe the next time Thomas wants to rage at the ref after an unfair drop he should instead be moving his legs as fast as they’ll go toward the puck carrier. He shouldn’t have time to whine and he isn’t a guy like Crosby who’s earned the power of whining. Turning and looking at the ref and whining during live play is not sound positional hockey.

 

[Spektre]

Enterprise makes $40B in revenue. That is not profit. They have to pay their expenses. Enterprise is owned by a family, and a few of them are on the Blues ownership group, but not all. So they don't have access to all the profit.

Nothing you said speaks toward their willingness to cover financial deficits of a rebuild. If they wanted to put more money into the Blues, they wouldn't be part of a consortium. They would gave bought the team outright. Again, rich people don't get super rich by throwing away money because they have it.

I don't think anyone believes or is arguing that $10M in annual losses from the Blues is going to cause the ownership group to declare bankruptcy. I think we all know that the ownership group has access to enough liquid assets to inject money into the team to cover losses. But millionaires and billionaires don't like losing money. No one bought into this ownership group for it to be a money pit and the reality is that even at our most profitable, the Blues franchise does not bring in the type of money that the large market teams do.

The team took out private loans during COVID to pay the bills instead of having owners invest personally. That is common practice, but it does demonstrate that there weren't years of huge profits post-Cup and demonstrates that owners weren't eager to take big financial losses. With the massive jump in valuation of pro sports teams, multiple years of sustained losses while the building is empty is exactly the type of thing that causes owners to bail and sell to people that view the team as a pure investment.

I don't think the Blues are at risk of that, but small and mid market teams are absolutely impacted by the bottom line and make hockey operations decisions based on that bottom line.

Didn’t Army publicly say that ownership would be on board had he made the decision to rebuild?