Blues 2024 Off-Season Trade Proposals Thread
- Thread starter simon IC
- Start date
- Status
Hard pass. Adding 2 extra years for each guy while only saving $500k in cap does make sense to me. By the time those contracts become easy to move, the Krug and Hayes contracts will be done.
That is my concern too. If we thought Graves was someone who could be asset for us I'd consider swapping Krug for him, but no way I want Rakell. But I'd have to really like Graves for us to do that and I'm not sure that I like him that much.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,975
I don't think that makes much sense for the Pens, but I would take that deal.
I'm curious what a Graves-Parayko pair could look like and if we wanted to split them up I think he'd do fine as the defensive guy on a 2nd pair that isn't playing crazy shutdown minutes. I don't love the term on his deal, but it only goes through his age 33 season so it isn't like he's ancient at the end. His salary isn't so much that you can't justify him as a #5 down the line and if we find ourselves in 'the next 2 years don't matter' mode he at least serves as a good veteran to shelter young players and makes Leddy all the more expendable. I'd gladly take the extra 2 years of term on him vs Krug.
I'm less wild about moving a stopgap cheap center for a more expensive winger with 2 extra years of term, but I'm fine doing it in order to shave $2M off the blueline while getting better defensively. I also think that Rakell could actually contribute on the 2nd line next year. He's probably done as the 55+ point player he was through his mid-late 20s, but his entire offensive skill set is centered around establishing in-zone offense and maintaining possession. Our offense desperately lacks that skill and I think that he could help our top 6 get better in that regard even if he isn't producing 50+ points on the scoresheet.
This trade would make it imperative that we acquire a center (or two) for next season though. That is doable with the cap space we have and I'm not wild about the last couple years on Rakell's deal. But I think he can still be serviceable as an overpaid 3rd line vet in 2026/27 and 2027/28. I think he's a really nice type of player to put on a sheltered middle 6 line with a developing rookie and will continue to be that (albeit less effective) deep into the remaining years of his deal.
Last edited:
CaliforniaBlues310
Registered User
Why would Pittsburgh trade for Krug when they already have EK and Letang on their blue line? That makes no sense from their perspective.
Besides that part, I’d say no anyways. We have enough wingers, and adding the extra years isn’t something I can see Army wanting to do. We more than likely have one more season of Krug anyways. His full NTC turns into a partial after next season.
Besides that part, I’d say no anyways. We have enough wingers, and adding the extra years isn’t something I can see Army wanting to do. We more than likely have one more season of Krug anyways. His full NTC turns into a partial after next season.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,975
Hard disagree when the 1 piece is arguably the best under-23 player in the world at his position, which also happens to be a position of organizational need.
Neither of our best two trade pieces (ignoring assets we consider untouchable) are worth a #1 overall pick on their own. Ignoring the 'quality' question and just looking at 'quantity' doesn't make something a panic move.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,245
- 6,190
Trading your two best pieces and landing a legit #1 is worth doing IMO. That would cause us a hit short term that could potentially get us a really nice pick to recoup the loss of JK. It’s a gamble, but then you have a #1 C & D to build around. Finding wingers to fill the voids is much easier and we may already have them in the system.
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
oh absolutely if this could be done we should do it.
people need to understand the concept of cornerstones better - the cornerstone 1D is so incredibly, incredibly valuable that I feel certain it hasn't been fully captured in its value. it's like, without one all your franchise is doing is waiting for one
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,975
The player being discussed was Owen Power. I think him, L Hughes, and Faber are the only 3 D in that discussion at the moment.
i'd put seider and sanderson in that discussion too.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,975
Seider is (just) now 23 otherwise I'd have him there as well.
I was probably too flippant to not include Sanderson as 'in the discussion' because he's in my top 5 for sure. But I can't make a case for him as the best of that group. He's hovering right there, but I don't think he has the highest ceiling, he doesn't have the best physical attributes, and I don't think he's currently playing the best. I'd have him a tier just below Power, Hughes, and Faber (although he's probably in a tier by himself there which may suggest that I'm not being totally fair to him).
I'd trade Kyrou for Sanderson with no hesitation. I'd strongly consider Kyrou + Buch for Sanderson. I wouldn't do Kyrou + Buch for Sanderson and a brutal contract. I'm a hell of a lot closer to being willing to make that last proposal if Power/Hughes/Faber were magically on the table.
Beauterham
Registered User
- Aug 19, 2018
- 1,710
- 1,533
To be honest, I think it would be very hard to convince a team to move a 'Sanderson level' young defenseman, not even for 1-for-1 Kyrou and maybe not even if you add rental Buch. I think the easiest way to get a young 'Sanderson-level' defenseman is probably to draft one ourselves (although that prospect will be 3-ish years away and thus push our next window a bit back). Are we willing to move Kyrou for a draftpick if one of Levshunov, Silayev, Dickinson, Parekh or Buium is still available? Would another team be willing to accept that?
Moving does probably mean we will have to call it a rebuild instead of a retool.
Sanderson might be best of the group. I’d certainly take him over Faber, perhaps over the others but he is absolutely in discussion for me.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,975
I think that is a totally reasonable opinion even though I disagree. I didn't watch as much of the Sens as I initially planned this year, so maybe I just caught him on a higher percentage of bad nights than he actually had throughout the season.
I said it earlier in the thread, but I agree that the teams holding those guys wouldn't trade them for that type of package.
I wouldn't be willing to trade Kyrou for a top 10 pick this year if 'our guy' was still on the board. A big part of the value I place on the guys we are talking about comes from the 2-4 years of post draft development and proof of concept against a higher level of competition than any draft-eligible prospect has demonstrated. That not only makes them closer to actually contributing to our team, but it also eliminates a lot of 'bust' concern.
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
When was the last time two 1st line players were traded for a top defensemen? You bring up Faber but he was traded along with a 1st for Fiala.
BadgersandBlues
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,847
- 1,326
Sanderson reminds me so so much of AP. He beats forechecks and breaks the puck up and out of the zone calmly and efficiently. He would be a perfect partner for Parayko too.
I'd trade Kyrou and Buch for Sanderson in a New York minute. I'd even take some bad money back but other then Korpisalo, who I wouldn't take, what contract on their books is an obvious anchor?
Kyrou+Buch for Sanderson+small add, like 3rd rounder or something. I don't know why Ottawa would do this, outside of perhaps wanting to keep Chabot and Chychrun over Sanderson, but that seems really dumb. Then again, it is Ottawa.
I'd trade Kyrou and Buch for Sanderson in a New York minute. I'd even take some bad money back but other then Korpisalo, who I wouldn't take, what contract on their books is an obvious anchor?
Kyrou+Buch for Sanderson+small add, like 3rd rounder or something. I don't know why Ottawa would do this, outside of perhaps wanting to keep Chabot and Chychrun over Sanderson, but that seems really dumb. Then again, it is Ottawa.
- Feb 12, 2008
- 19,751
- 9,283
Majorityof1
Registered User
Apparently this is what Stillman said on 101 ESPN today fwiw
x.com
x.com
What does recalibrate mean if not a somewhat busy off-season? Re calibrate by definition means to change the calibration, ie change. So to change you have to make moves. So throw that into the pile of "re" words that don't mean shit, and are just buzz words to fool fans into continuing to buy tickets while management does f*** all to improve the team. Retool, refocus, recalibrate, renew, or rewhatever, its all rewarmed over BS.
To me it sounds like he's saying more they'll be clearing space on the roster for young players, or at least making sure there's room on the roster for them to make the team if they earn it, and that we won't be making any significant additions.
Of course at this point I'd be a fool to actually believe whatever I read from that sentence is what he actually intended to say, given past cases, so yeah.
We should at least give credit where credit is due, Stillman came up with a brand new "re-" word to add to the list. You gotta admit that's pretty impressive given the number we've already piled on.
change the way you do or think about something: You need to recalibrate your expectations. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean they're changing what they think of some players? coaches? plans? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
he's saying that they know we won't be very good next year. he is committed to the process and they aren't going to go out and try to shortcut it this summer. which i think you understand. we all love to rightfully mock them because they won't say rebuild, but what they have laid out is a measured rebuild that aims to shorten the downtime by avoiding bottoming out. 3 years from now the roster will have been almost entirely turned over and we will have a bunch of youngish guys in key roles, as you would expect in a rebuild.
that is basically what army has repeatedly said. now whether that will yield us enough good enough players to be a contender is open question, but it's not an unreasonable plan when you want to avoid the risks that come with truly tanking. i get why some folks are not sold on this plan, because finding stars is much harder when you are picking 10-20 than top 5, but i look at what so many teams have had to gone through once they decided whether to tear it down and i think finding our mcavoy and pasta sounds like perhaps a better path than hoping our eichel and dahlin can get us back to contending status.
Memento
Future Authoress.
Have we done "resurrect" yet? Because that's what I see this team as at what it could be. A resurrection with almost every player different than we won with in 2019 (Thomas and Binnington aside).
This is going to be a slow process; we have a lot of fat to trim, and we're banking on a lot of younger players as new pieces to the puzzle. But I believe we could resurrect this team from what we are, like the mythical phoenix.
- Status
