Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Blues 2024-2025 Prospect Thread

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
STL fan in MN said:
I’d bet $100 Dvorsky plays less than 10 games for the Blues this season. If he plays 9 or less, his contract slides because he’s a teenager.
Click to expand...
We would be totally foolish to bring him up. He has a lot to clean up in his game. There’s no question that he’s the most talented player on Springfield, but there’s no question. He needs a lot of work to do cleaning up his passing and turnover game. At this point, we would run him out of town as much as he turns over the puck and makes poor passes. There is a lot of good mixed in there. He just needs to get a handle on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeoriaBlues309, Celtic Note and Bye Bye Blueston
PerryTurnbullfan said:
We would be totally foolish to bring him up. He has a lot to clean up in his game. There’s no question that he’s the most talented player on Springfield, but there’s no question. He needs a lot of work to do cleaning up his passing and turnover game. At this point, we would run him out of town as much as he turns over the puck and makes poor passes. There is a lot of good mixed in there. He just needs to get a handle on it.
Click to expand...
Well, that too.

My thinking though is more along the lines of later in the season. Let’s say he cleans up a lot of those things and we need a player and he likely wouldn’t look out of place. I still doubt they’d give him more than 9 games. He’d have to REALLY be ready and them REALLY need him to justify it. I just don’t see it.

But as of now, totally agree. Regardless of the contract situation, he should stay in Springfield. He’s leading AHL rookies in goals but let him keep on developing. He’s doing well but still has plenty to work on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stlwahoo, Vladys Gumption and Brian39
STL fan in MN said:
I’d bet $100 Dvorsky plays less than 10 games for the Blues this season. If he plays 9 or less, his contract slides because he’s a teenager.
Click to expand...

There is some upside to burning a year off an ELC for the team. If we get him to RFA faster, he has less info to justify a bigger deal. Giving him that one more year of data before his next contract could hurt you in the end.

I agree that we won't call him up for too many games, but more because we do 't want to rush him, get his hopes up to be an NHL regular in case we need to send him down next year
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeoriaBlues309, STL fan in MN, Celtic Note and 2 others
STL fan in MN said:
I’d bet $100 Dvorsky plays less than 10 games for the Blues this season. If he plays 9 or less, his contract slides because he’s a teenager.
Click to expand...
I won't say that the slide consideration is irrelevant, but I do think that "what's best for his development" would be more important to the Blues than getting his contract to slide. If (and this is a decent-sized if) we think that NHL games will be better for his development, then I think we'd be content to call him up and burn the ELC year instead of keeping him in the AHL to save the year.

We play 19 games after the trade deadline this year. I wouldn't be shocked to see us burn the year if it meant him getting in that amount (or more) games. @Majorityof1 makes a good point about what burning a year can do for the next contract. It prevents the player from feeling slighted and it limits the sample the player is drawing from for his extension.

We have a lot of money coming off the books before his ELC ends even if we burn a year this season (Saad, Leddy, Faulk, Krug, Binner). Sliding his ELC would also get Schenn off the books before he's due a raise, but I don't really think that we are in danger of being in a cap crunch for 2027/28 (the first season he could potentially get a raise). Again, I'm not saying the slide consideration is irrelevant. All things being equal, you'd rather delay his next contract. But I don't think it is such an important consideration that we'd avoid playing him in the NHL if we truly thought that was the best thing for him by February or early March.

Edit: I haven't watching anything besides highlights, but I have to say that leading Springfield in goals and points through 13 games is just about the very top of my hopes for the start of his North American pro career.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PeoriaBlues309 and Celtic Note
One thing I'm almost certain about is that if Dvorsky is going to be given a cup of coffee - it should be after Feb 21st, unless we get further impacted by injuries.

My reasoning for this date in particular is there are 0 NHL games being played between Feb 10th-21st due to the 4 Nations Face-Off, but the AHL season continues unhindered.

If the Blues' FO is intending to move out a vet forward before the TDL, it makes sense to give Dvo a few games beforehand to see if he's ready to play the rest of the season in the big show. Particularly if that vet is Brandon Saad - because that opens up a hole next year that Dvo would be expected to fill, rather than forcing him to show he's earned it in training camp.

I don't expect a Faksa or Kapanen move to be similarly impactful if they occur, as Kapanen is a RW right shot and Faksa plays a lower role in the lineup than we hope Dvo is tried in. Giving Dvo a run on the LW rather than center for a handful of games seems likely for his first NHL taste. I'd assume that if he gets 5-10 NHL games down the stretch this year, Dvorsky will be positioned in a role where he can get center reps next year with another winger who is center capable to reduce the impact of any mistakes initially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeoriaBlues309
Majorityof1 said:
There is some upside to burning a year off an ELC for the team. If we get him to RFA faster, he has less info to justify a bigger deal. Giving him that one more year of data before his next contract could hurt you in the end.

I agree that we won't call him up for too many games, but more because we do 't want to rush him, get his hopes up to be an NHL regular in case we need to send him down next year
Click to expand...
This is true. I’ve seen plenty of examples where a player’s ELC expires after the first year is burned, he signs a bridge deal and then breaks out the first year of the bridge. He would’ve cost a lot more had he been a RFA one season later. But then there’s times it works out well for the player too.

But it does seem to be a consideration for teams. But agree with you and Brian that it’s not a huge consideration. If he’s absolutely ready and there’s a need then he should be with the Blues. But I just don’t see that as likely for a good chunk of this season. But I’m far from 100% certain. It’s why I’d be willing to bet $100 but not $100,000. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian39
izzy said:
no longer blues property but lol

https://x.com/i/web/status/1856396837831188688
Click to expand...

This is so strange. Seems it is a set suspension. Taunt/insult a player based on protected status (race, religion, etc) and you get 5 games. Sim, according to his agent didn't know what it meant, and said it in a taunting back and forth. Boom, 5 games automatically since that is a religion.
 
Majorityof1 said:
This is so strange. Seems it is a set suspension. Taunt/insult a player based on protected status (race, religion, etc) and you get 5 games. Sim, according to his agent didn't know what it meant, and said it in a taunting back and forth. Boom, 5 games automatically since that is a religion.
Click to expand...
Honestly not sure which one is funnier.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: ChicagoBlues
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom