Blues 2024 Off-Season Trade Proposals Thread

[ChicagoBlues]

Sorry, @TurgPavs, I just can't see any of them coming back. I understand the sentiment and reasoning, but we need to move on, buddy.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

While I'm a big fan of Leddy, I'd be on board moving him at the draft too. Will still get solid value, and is he in our long-term plans?

Although with his style, he could age pretty well.

Without some other deal to bring in a LHD, I’d be a bit hesitant to move him(unless someone offers something too good to refuse) at the draft just because that’s a lot of heavy minutes that would need to be replaced. I’d certainly be more willing to move him at the TDL since we’d still be moving him with two playoff runs, so there probably wouldn’t be too much difference in value between the draft and then.

 

[Reality Czech]

I disagree with most of this.
The Blues missed the playoffs by 6 points, and where on a 99 point pace under Bannister.

I wouldnt be surprised at all if any of Eddy, Perron, or Tarasenko came back to St. Louis. They all respect and where close with Steen, and all loved the area.

Most UFA's are going to be overpaid. However the flip side of that, is you are going to have to over pay in assets (Picks Prospects) to fill those holes in your line up via trade.
I would rather give Perron or Tarasenko 4.5 - 5 million on a 2 year deal then have to move (Insert a Prospect/Picks) to fill those same holes.

Its been 5 years since the financial windfall from winning the cup and 4 years since the financial windfall from the Kraken expansion fee. You start adding in the losses of the organization in ticket sales from COVID, its not a pretty sight.

I am not suggesting the organization is not solid, however the Blues need to make the playoffs, in most years, to turn a profit.

You go another year with no revenue from playoff games, its going to start to be a problem.

The ship has sailed on Tarasenko, but I could see the other two potentially return. Key word potentially. Perron did an interview with Cam and Strick not long after signing in Detroit and while he was certainly disappointed about not being resigned, he also knows it's a business and didn't seem bitter towards Army or the organization. If he wants to settle in St Louis long term, then I could definitely see him come back. If he wants to try to for one more Cup, then probably not.

 

[TurgPavs]

Let's say that adding 1 of Perron or Tarasenko is the difference between missing and making the playoffs. I don't think that either makes that large of an impact, but let's assume it is true. 4-6 games of playoff revenue over 2 seasons likely would not match the $9-$10M you want the Blues to give them.

If the team is in financial trouble, cutting payroll is easily the safer and more reliable option to balance the books than adding millions of dollars to payroll for middle of the lineup players in the hopes to make the playoffs but not seriously contend. I don't think either of Perron or Tarasenko moves the needle much to this team making the playoffs.

Neither address our 2 larges deficiencies (center and LD) and both of them played 3rd line minutes for teams below us in the standings this year. They are complimentary players at this stage of their careers. Different types of complimentary players, but they are not top of the lineup guys. I have major doubts that bolstering wing depth in the middle of the lineup is a good use of $5M for a team in financial trouble.

A Few things:
Tarasenko played on the 2nd line in Ottawa and has been on the second line for FL, as well as PP#1.
And I do believe it would be a hard sell getting Tarasenko and or Perron back to St. Louis, but if they are open, then I believe the Blues would benefit greatly from signing either or both of them.

Its pretty well documented that a single playoff game brings in roughly 1.5 - roughly 2 million in revenue for the home team. Of course some of the gate goes to the League to be placed in the Playoff Pool, but that's a significant amount of revenue. For most NHL Team, that playoff revenue is the difference in posting a profit or breaking even on the season.

Wither it is the guys I listed or other players, my point is I would rather the Blues fill the holes they have via UFA, then to trade players and create more holes to fill.

The only trade I would be open to, would involve one of Faulk or Krug, on the D side, and Hayes on the O side. But I am certainly not retaining salary on any move, nor am I "Paying" another Team to take either player.

 

[Reality Czech]

A Few things:
Tarasenko played on the 2nd line in Ottawa and has been on the second line for FL, as well as PP#1.
And I do believe it would be a hard sell getting Tarasenko and or Perron back to St. Louis, but if they are open, then I believe the Blues would benefit greatly from signing either or both of them.

Its pretty well documented that a single playoff game brings in roughly 1.5 - roughly 2 million in revenue for the home team. Of course some of the gate goes to the League to be placed in the Playoff Pool, but that's a significant amount of revenue. For most NHL Team, that playoff revenue is the difference in posting a profit or breaking even on the season.

Wither it is the guys I listed or other players, my point is I would rather the Blues fill the holes they have via UFA, then to trade players and create more holes to fill.

The only trade I would be open to, would involve one of Faulk or Krug, on the D side, and Hayes on the O side. But I am certainly not retaining salary on any move, nor am I "Paying" another Team to take either player.

Not that it's so important but hasn't Tarasenko been on Florida's third line and PP2? That says more about their depth than Tarasenko however. I would put the chances at him coming back at close to zero considering the drama that seemed to have gone on behind the scenes with trade requests, medical decisions, etc. The only way it happens is if no one else offers him market value and the Blues do, but I can't see it happening. I could see Perron coming back though I wouldn't bet on it.

I do agree with your sentiment of trying to add via FA as I don't think now is the time to give up premium assets in a trade unless it's for a young rising star that will be a part of the core going forward.

 

[greybush314]

Buchnevich 1/2 retained and extended to Islanders for 20th OA and Calle Odelius(6'1 LHD 2nd round pick)

Saad 1/2 retained to Toronto for 23 oa

Binnington to NJ for 10th oa and Arseni Gritsyuk

10th OA and Snuggerud to Utah for 6th oa and 38th OA

Try to move one of Krug or Leddy and move Faulk


Yes this means we take a step back this year but we need a good development year

Neighbours-Thomas-Bolduc
Schenn-Dvorsky-Kyrou
Toropchenko-Hayes-Sylvegard
Walker-Sundqvist-Kapanen
Macmac, Alexandrov

Perunovich-Parayko
Leddy/Krug-Kessel
Tucker-Johannesson
Veteran depth

Hofer
vet

 

[TurgPavs]

Buchnevich 1/2 retained and extended to Islanders for 20th OA and Calle Odelius(6'1 LHD 2nd round pick)

Saad 1/2 retained to Toronto for 23 oa

Binnington to NJ for 10th oa and Arseni Gritsyuk

10th OA and Snuggerud to Utah for 6th oa and 38th OA

Try to move one of Krug or Leddy and move Faulk


Yes this means we take a step back this year but we need a good development year

Neighbours-Thomas-Bolduc
Schenn-Dvorsky-Kyrou
Toropchenko-Hayes-Sylvegard
Walker-Sundqvist-Kapanen
Macmac, Alexandrov

Perunovich-Parayko
Leddy/Krug-Kessel
Tucker-Johannesson
Veteran depth

Hofer
vet

You are suggesting Army and Steen, go to the ownership group and ask to retain 13.5 million dollars in actual salary, so that we can have a development year?
So the Blues are going to trade their top prospect and pay 13.5 million dollars...........

OK.........

 

[greybush314]

You are suggesting Army and Steen, go to the ownership group and ask to retain 13.5 million dollars in actual salary, so that we can have a development year?
So the Blues are going to trade their top prospect and pay 13.5 million dollars...........

OK.........

It's 7.4m and yeah I don't think the ownership group would have any problem with this. And all of this is setting us up to have a super strong prospect pool to trade from for the 26-27 season when we will be entering our window to contend.

 

[TurgPavs]

It's 7.4m and yeah I don't think the ownership group would have any problem with this. And all of this is setting us up to have a super strong prospect pool to trade from for the 26-27 season when we will be entering our window to contend.

The actual salary is what is retained.
Buch
24-25 Salary 6,300,000 (50% retention 3,150,000)

Saad
24-25 Salary 4,375,000 (50% retention 2,187.500)
25-26 Salary 3,625,000 (50% retention 1,812,500)
Total 8,000,000 (50% retention 4,000,000)

Binny
24-25 Salary 7,500,000 (50% retention 3,750,000)
25-26 Salary 6,500,000 (50% retention 3,250,000)
26-27 Salary 4,5000,000 (50% retention 2,250,000)
Total 18,500,000 (50% retention 9,250,000)

Total Retention 16,400,000
24-25 Salary retention 9,087,500, Cap Hit 8,150,000
25-26 Salary retention 5,062,500, Cap Hit 5,250,000
26-27 Retention 2,250,000, Cap Hit 3,000,000

 

[Brian39]

Its pretty well documented that a single playoff game brings in roughly 1.5 - roughly 2 million in revenue for the home team. Of course some of the gate goes to the League to be placed in the Playoff Pool, but that's a significant amount of revenue. For most NHL Team, that playoff revenue is the difference in posting a profit or breaking even on the season.

The league takes 35% of ticket revenue in the playoffs plus there are the additional operational costs related to hosting games and travelling to road games. Let's put the per-game profit in the playoffs at $1.5M.

Hosting 3 games (a pretty decent outcome for a Wild Card team that is just trying to get in for some revenue) would mean $4.5M of profit generated in the playoffs. Which is the number you're talking about spending on an aging UFA to get you there. If you add $4.5M to your payroll to make the playoffs, then you have fully cancelled out the profit generated in the playoffs. You also carry the risk of still missing the playoffs or that you lose in 5 and only get 2 home games. I think that risk more than outweighs the potential of winning a round and further increasing profit.

Again, the much more reliable way to balance the budget would be to decrease payroll. Our most likely 'this is a rebuilding year' trade assets all carry salaries that would very noticeably lower payroll. Buch is going to make $6.3M this year. Saad will make $4.35M, Leddy will make $3.5M, and Binner will make $7.5M. Krug is making $8.5M real dollars, which would be a massive cut if you can actually move him. Faulk is cheap compared to his cap hit ($4.75M), but that would still be a big cut to payroll. Hell, a Krug buyout (and then replacing him with a $2.5M #4/5 D man) would save over $4M in real dollars this year. I really don't see that happening, but if we are talking about financial viability that is probably a more sensible short-term move than adding payroll.

I think that this ownership group and the front office still have the long-term on ice product as their #1 priority, but if the balance sheet has become the #1 priority then the best way to accomplish that goal would be to cut payroll, not adding payroll in the hopes of playoff revenue. You're talking about a potential $10-$30M payroll swing between those two options and the team is almost certainly not going to make a deep enough run to make up that difference with ticket and playoff revenue.

 

[greybush314]

The actual salary is what is retained.
Buch
24-25 Salary 6,300,000 (50% retention 3,150,000)

Saad
24-25 Salary 4,375,000 (50% retention 2,187.500)
25-26 Salary 3,625,000 (50% retention 1,812,500)
Total 8,000,000 (50% retention 4,000,000)

Binny
24-25 Salary 7,500,000 (50% retention 3,750,000)
25-26 Salary 6,500,000 (50% retention 3,250,000)
26-27 Salary 4,5000,000 (50% retention 2,250,000)
Total 18,500,000 (50% retention 9,250,000)

Total Retention 16,400,000
24-25 Salary retention 9,087,500, Cap Hit 8,150,000
25-26 Salary retention 5,062,500, Cap Hit 5,250,000
26-27 Retention 2,250,000, Cap Hit 3,000,000

Didn't say anything about retaining for Binnington

 

[Brian39]

A Few things:
Tarasenko played on the 2nd line in Ottawa and has been on the second line for FL, as well as PP#1.
And I do believe it would be a hard sell getting Tarasenko and or Perron back to St. Louis, but if they are open, then I believe the Blues would benefit greatly from signing either or both of them.

Tarasenko started on the 2nd line in Ottawa, but didn't hold it. He finished 8th among Sens forwards in TOI per game and even strength time on ice per game. He got 3rd line and 2nd PP unit deployment. You can argue that their 6th-8th forwards were close enough at even strength that the line is fuzzy and he was very nearly a complimentary piece on the 2nd line, but he did not consistently play 2nd line for them. He bounced around in the middle 6 and played fewer minutes than two other guys who did the same thing.

In Florida, he has absolutely not been on their 2nd line. Barkov/Reinhart is a pair for one line with Tkachuk/Bennet a pair for the other. Tarasenko doesn't play with either of those pairs. There is no reality where Tarasenko's line would be considered the 2nd line over either of those lines and the minutes very much bear that out. Tarasenko is 9th among Panthers forwards in TOI per game and even strength TOI per game in the playoffs. He is also very much not on their top PP unit. He's 7th among Panthers forwards in PP time per game. His 1:52 a night is just shy of 2 minutes a night less than their big 4 group of Reinhart, Barkov, Tkachuk, and Verhaeghe.

I'm not trying to diminish what Tarasenko (and his line) have done in these playoffs. They are a big reason why the Panthers got here and he personally has scored some big goals. But his role has been that of a 3rd line player with PP2 usage. He's getting fewer minutes than he did in Ottawa, but he was playing a pretty damn similar role their as well and that was on a non-playoff team with a below average offense.

 

[TurgPavs]

The league takes 35% of ticket revenue in the playoffs plus there are the additional operational costs related to hosting games and travelling to road games. Let's put the per-game profit in the playoffs at $1.5M.

Hosting 3 games (a pretty decent outcome for a Wild Card team that is just trying to get in for some revenue) would mean $4.5M of profit generated in the playoffs. Which is the number you're talking about spending on an aging UFA to get you there. If you add $4.5M to your payroll to make the playoffs, then you have fully cancelled out the profit generated in the playoffs. You also carry the risk of still missing the playoffs or that you lose in 5 and only get 2 home games. I think that risk more than outweighs the potential of winning a round and further increasing profit.

Again, the much more reliable way to balance the budget would be to decrease payroll. Our most likely 'this is a rebuilding year' trade assets all carry salaries that would very noticeably lower payroll. Buch is going to make $6.3M this year. Saad will make $4.35M, Leddy will make $3.5M, and Binner will make $7.5M. Krug is making $8.5M real dollars, which would be a massive cut if you can actually move him. Faulk is cheap compared to his cap hit ($4.75M), but that would still be a big cut to payroll. Hell, a Krug buyout (and then replacing him with a $2.5M #4/5 D man) would save over $4M in real dollars this year. I really don't see that happening, but if we are talking about financial viability that is probably a more sensible short-term move than adding payroll.

I think that this ownership group and the front office still have the long-term on ice product as their #1 priority, but if the balance sheet has become the #1 priority then the best way to accomplish that goal would be to cut payroll, not adding payroll in the hopes of playoff revenue. You're talking about a potential $10-$30M payroll swing between those two options and the team is almost certainly not going to make a deep enough run to make up that difference with ticket and playoff revenue.

Here is the issue with not adding payroll, cutting payroll, not making the playoffs, and "Building for the future"

Once you get to that "Window" or you have "Built for the Future" you have a team built on players who have ZERO or very little playoff experience. Thus you are going to have to OVERSPEND in free agency to acquire a difference maker, to come to a team who has failed to make the playoffs for "X" number of years, or you are going to have to over pay in prospects, young players, and/or draft picks to acquire a difference maker via trade.

Thats the issue with "Building for the future" and not making the playoffs each year.
Look at LA, how have they done "Building for the future"? Buffalo? Ottawa, etc.
There are very few teams, that have had success in the playoffs with a "Home Grown" group of talent.

Its just not realistic to expect all of the Blues top prospects to flourish at the NHL level.
Since 2009, the Blues have had 15 or 16 1st round picks, and 4 have become difference makers in the NHL Several where complete busts, i.e. Bokk, Schmaltz, Rundblad, Kostin.
The second round has been filled with absolute busts Perunovich, Fitzpatrick Letunov, Vanelli Kurker, Jaskin, Wannstrom, Ponich....

I just cant agree that missing the playoffs has any sort of positive impact on building your current group of talent. Drafting in the top 5 or 10 every year is just a recipe for a crappy organization.

 

[Brian39]

Here is the issue with not adding payroll, cutting payroll, not making the playoffs, and "Building for the future"

Once you get to that "Window" or you have "Built for the Future" you have a team built on players who have ZERO or very little playoff experience. Thus you are going to have to OVERSPEND in free agency to acquire a difference maker, to come to a team who has failed to make the playoffs for "X" number of years, or you are going to have to over pay in prospects, young players, and/or draft picks to acquire a difference maker via trade.

Thats the issue with "Building for the future" and not making the playoffs each year.
Look at LA, how have they done "Building for the future"? Buffalo? Ottawa, etc.
There are very few teams, that have had success in the playoffs with a "Home Grown" group of talent.

I don't disagree about the disadvantages of tanking and I don't think we will see the Blues tank. But I think they try to accomplish that goal by taking chances on cheaper and/or younger guys with medium-term upside in positions of need vs throwing money at vet UFAs who can't plausibly contribute beyond the short term.

And I very much don't think it is about playoff revenue.

Its just not realistic to expect all of the Blues top prospects to flourish at the NHL level.
Since 2009, the Blues have had 15 or 16 1st round picks, and 4 have become difference makers in the NHL Several where complete busts, i.e. Bokk, Schmaltz, Rundblad, Kostin.
The second round has been filled with absolute busts Perunovich, Fitzpatrick Letunov, Vanelli Kurker, Jaskin, Wannstrom, Ponich....

I just cant agree that missing the playoffs has any sort of positive impact on building your current group of talent. Drafting in the top 5 or 10 every year is just a recipe for a crappy organization.

I think that is a pretty misleading summary of the Blues picks. 5 of the 15 1st round picks since 2009 were drafted in the last 3 years and are the very players we are wondering about potentially becoming NHL guys. Another one of those picks was Neighbours, who is developing pretty nicely. That's 6 of the 15 total picks. So excluding currently developing guys, we're talking about 4 of 9 picks becoming real difference makers.

Not every prospect is going to hit, but we can reasonably expect more than a 4 of 15 success rate using past performance as a predictor.

 

[TurgPavs]

I don't disagree about the disadvantages of tanking and I don't think we will see the Blues tank. But I think they try to accomplish that goal by taking chances on cheaper and/or younger guys with medium-term upside in positions of need vs throwing money at vet UFAs who can't plausibly contribute beyond the short term.

And I very much don't think it is about playoff revenue.


I think that is a pretty misleading summary of the Blues picks. 5 of the 15 1st round picks since 2009 were drafted in the last 3 years and are the very players we are wondering about potentially becoming NHL guys. Another one of those picks was Neighbours, who is developing pretty nicely. That's 6 of the 15 total picks. So excluding currently developing guys, we're talking about 4 of 9 picks becoming real difference makers.

Not every prospect is going to hit, but we can reasonably expect more than a 4 of 15 success rate using past performance as a predictor.

Fair enough on the Draft picks.
However, I dont think the Ownership/Front office have any intention of icing a team just for a development season.
If the Blues want to continue to put butts int he seats, and continue to sell out regular season games and continue driving season ticket sales, then you have to ice a team and have a front office committed to competing for a playoff position.

 

[Eldon Reid]

Here is the issue with not adding payroll, cutting payroll, not making the playoffs, and "Building for the future"

Once you get to that "Window" or you have "Built for the Future" you have a team built on players who have ZERO or very little playoff experience. Thus you are going to have to OVERSPEND in free agency to acquire a difference maker, to come to a team who has failed to make the playoffs for "X" number of years, or you are going to have to over pay in prospects, young players, and/or draft picks to acquire a difference maker via trade.

Thats the issue with "Building for the future" and not making the playoffs each year.
Look at LA, how have they done "Building for the future"? Buffalo? Ottawa, etc.
There are very few teams, that have had success in the playoffs with a "Home Grown" group of talent.

Its just not realistic to expect all of the Blues top prospects to flourish at the NHL level.
Since 2009, the Blues have had 15 or 16 1st round picks, and 4 have become difference makers in the NHL Several where complete busts, i.e. Bokk, Schmaltz, Rundblad, Kostin.
The second round has been filled with absolute busts Perunovich, Fitzpatrick Letunov, Vanelli Kurker, Jaskin, Wannstrom, Ponich....

I just cant agree that missing the playoffs has any sort of positive impact on building your current group of talent. Drafting in the top 5 or 10 every year is just a recipe for a crappy organization.

It isn't all about the pick and if they fail, it is about moving the prospect too while they have value or use them to better your team. Sometimes too injuries happen and derail a person career. I.E. Ponich, Fabbri, and Foley (Stastny trade)

Sure Bokk was a bust, but guess what traded him for Faulk. Good move.
Rundblad traded for Tarasenko pick (rundblad bust but traded him beforehand) Good move.

As someone else said, we had 5 of 15 1st picks within last 3 years so hard to judge Blues completely on 1st round. But Neighbours is making the right steps and so is Bolduc. Snuggs has looked very good in college.

 

[TurgPavs]

It isn't all about the pick and if they fail, it is about moving the prospect too while they have value or use them to better your team. Sometimes too injuries happen and derail a person career. I.E. Ponich, Fabbri, and Foley (Stastny trade)

Sure Bokk was a bust, but guess what traded him for Faulk. Good move.
Rundblad traded for Tarasenko pick (rundblad bust but traded him beforehand) Good move.

As someone else said, we had 5 of 15 1st picks within last 3 years so hard to judge Blues completely on 1st round. But Neighbours is making the right steps and so is Bolduc. Snuggs has looked very good in college.

I think the Bokk trade reflects the "Value" that some of the 1st round picks. Any fan base is going to over value their prospects, and the Blues fans are no different.
If you break down the Faulk Deal.
Faulk the prior 2 seasons, was getting top pairing ice time.
Eddy the prior 2 seasons was getting 2nd pairing ice time.
Faulk was getting roughly 2 minutes more per game, and averaging nearly 3 minutes on the PP per game.
St Louis gave up a 5th and Carolina gave up a 7th.

Bokk was the 25th player selected in 2018. Pronman had Bokk as the #8th overall player available heading into the draft. Many had Bokk as a top 20, and several a top 15 overall selection.

A little more then a year after Bokk was drafted he was traded.

The question is, how much value did Bokk actually have?

I will say this, the Blues have been quick to deal guys, i.e. Bokk, Rundblad, etc. if they feel they have value and possible have made a drafting error.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The league takes 35% of ticket revenue in the playoffs plus there are the additional operational costs related to hosting games and travelling to road games. Let's put the per-game profit in the playoffs at $1.5M.

Hosting 3 games (a pretty decent outcome for a Wild Card team that is just trying to get in for some revenue) would mean $4.5M of profit generated in the playoffs. Which is the number you're talking about spending on an aging UFA to get you there. If you add $4.5M to your payroll to make the playoffs, then you have fully cancelled out the profit generated in the playoffs. You also carry the risk of still missing the playoffs or that you lose in 5 and only get 2 home games. I think that risk more than outweighs the potential of winning a round and further increasing profit.

Again, the much more reliable way to balance the budget would be to decrease payroll. Our most likely 'this is a rebuilding year' trade assets all carry salaries that would very noticeably lower payroll. Buch is going to make $6.3M this year. Saad will make $4.35M, Leddy will make $3.5M, and Binner will make $7.5M. Krug is making $8.5M real dollars, which would be a massive cut if you can actually move him. Faulk is cheap compared to his cap hit ($4.75M), but that would still be a big cut to payroll. Hell, a Krug buyout (and then replacing him with a $2.5M #4/5 D man) would save over $4M in real dollars this year. I really don't see that happening, but if we are talking about financial viability that is probably a more sensible short-term move than adding payroll.

I think that this ownership group and the front office still have the long-term on ice product as their #1 priority, but if the balance sheet has become the #1 priority then the best way to accomplish that goal would be to cut payroll, not adding payroll in the hopes of playoff revenue. You're talking about a potential $10-$30M payroll swing between those two options and the team is almost certainly not going to make a deep enough run to make up that difference with ticket and playoff revenue.

Creating a new senior administrative position is also not a great strategy for reducing costs, if that was a big pressure.

I expect them to continue to be a cap spending team, but to weaponize the cap space in service of getting young assets looking toward future strength.

 

[Brian39]

Creating a new senior administrative position is also not a great strategy for reducing costs, if that was a big pressure.

I'd love to know what Steen is making. We will never get that answer, but I'd love to know. I don't think it is a guarantee that these promotions came with raises. Public promotions is a tried and true way that business try to reward/placate/retain key employees without giving them raises. It wouldn't be all that surprising to me if Tim Taylor was promoted to AGM in lieu of a sizeable raise and that the public succession plan to Steen was a concession to him having a more lucrative offer from elsewhere.

Pure and total speculation from me, but I'm not 100% convinced that we added a ton of money to the front office budget with last week's announcement.

I expect them to continue to be a cap spending team, but to weaponize the cap space in service of getting young assets looking toward future strength.

I think that the front office has the authority to spend to the cap, but I'm not confident that we will. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we leave a decent chunk of unused cap space if we aren't able to weaponize it the way we want. Which I don't have any problem with. Nothing wrong with maintaining flexibility if you don't get the deal(s) you wanted over the summer.

If we do bring in outside players making real money, I expect them to be pure cap dumps (we get another asset to eat a bad contract), reclamation projects, or decent players on bloated deals in positions of need.

While I do think that this ownership group cares about the bottom line more than most fans care to acknowledge, I do think that long-term team building is the top priority and that the approved player payroll budget will be primarily focused on the long-term rather than boosting short term revenue.

 

[stl76]

What kind of asset would you want attached to Ilya Mikheyev to take on his contract from the canucks?

He has 2 years left including next season at $4.75 AAV. 29 years old, decent enough bottom 6 winger, but way overpaid.

Would a 2nd be too much/not enough?

 

[MissouriMook]

...

I think that the front office has the authority to spend to the cap, but I'm not confident that we will. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we leave a decent chunk of unused cap space if we aren't able to weaponize it the way we want. Which I don't have any problem with. Nothing wrong with maintaining flexibility if you don't get the deal(s) you wanted over the summer.

If we do bring in outside players making real money, I expect them to be pure cap dumps (we get another asset to eat a bad contract), reclamation projects, or decent players on bloated deals in positions of need.

While I do think that this ownership group cares about the bottom line more than most fans care to acknowledge, I do think that long-term team building is the top priority and that the approved player payroll budget will be primarily focused on the long-term rather than boosting short term revenue.

To me, one of the most intriguing aspects of what the Blues do this summer (in a summer where I expect very little intrigue from the Blues) is whether or not they are going to spend some money in the short term for a 2C option to bolster our secondary scoring and provide some of our young wingers some veteran support. Aside from that, I am not expecting much but will be pleasantly surprised if we can unload a contract or two to clear the path for some younger players and improve our cap situation for the 2026-27 season when Steen takes over the GM role.

What kind of asset would you want attached to Ilya Mikheyev to take on his contract from the canucks?

He has 2 years left including next season at $4.75 AAV. 29 years old, decent enough bottom 6 winger, but way overpaid.

Would a 2nd be too much/not enough?

I can't see us bringing in a winger this offseason, and I doubt the Canucks are willing to add that much to make Mikheyev's deal go away.

 

[BlueDream]

What kind of asset would you want attached to Ilya Mikheyev to take on his contract from the canucks?

He has 2 years left including next season at $4.75 AAV. 29 years old, decent enough bottom 6 winger, but way overpaid.

Would a 2nd be too much/not enough?

A first round pick. Period.

They wouldn’t give that, but we shouldn’t accept anything less for a guy we don’t need at all. I have zero interest in him, it’s a waste of cap space.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

What kind of asset would you want attached to Ilya Mikheyev to take on his contract from the canucks?

He has 2 years left including next season at $4.75 AAV. 29 years old, decent enough bottom 6 winger, but way overpaid.

Would a 2nd be too much/not enough?

Would love to do a deal like this, asset accumulation needs to be the primary focus for another full season. If we can tick another year off of some of these albatross contracts, and at the same time add futures for any combination of moving some of our own vets that still hold value or eating a bad contract from another team, that is the way forward. We do not need to try to rush back into the playoffs next season. A top 10 pick in 2025, and a top 10 prospect pool should be our goal by seasons end. If we want to sign impact free agents, we should wait till NEXT offseason. One more transition year at minimum and we can start righting this ship. In no way am i advocating for a full rebuild, we keep Thomas, Kyrou, and Parayko and build around that nucleus going forward. A re-tool works if done right, just needs the right vision.

 

[TurgPavs]

Snuggs has looked very good in college.

I am seem to remember Senja and Perunvich looking good enough in college to win the Hobey......one never panned out and the other is struggling to stay in the NHL at the soon to be age of 26.
I realize either where 1st round picks, the my point is you just never know with prospects and college performance has often not related to the NHL.
I am extremely concerned with Snuggy's decision to return to Minnesota.
-His performance his freshman season, was a reflection of playing with Cooley and Knies
-Without Cooley and Knies his play diminished from 1.2 points per game to .87 PPG
-His father pushed for a full time position with the Blues and the Blues did not feel comfortable with that.
-After this season, he could either A) sign an entry level deal, or B) play as UM for one bore season then become a UFA.
-NIL is playing apart in keeping him at UM, and it could be the same situation next off season.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Sejna was never a high-end prospect and Perunovich has had a ton of injuries.