Blues 2024 Off-Season Trade Proposals Thread

[BlueDream]

None of them are really great puck movers. Parayko and Leddy are great skaters. Faulk is more of a shooter. I’m just not sure we can count on Perunovich for more than 40 games in a season, and even at that rate he’s so reluctant to shoot on our powerplay which already has issues of being too cute with over passing. Phenomenal puck mover though.

Well we aren’t going to swing that in a Krug trade. Our first order of business should be dumping him and his contract, and I like the Chariot idea as a depth piece to shore up the bottom pair and give us an element we need.

After that, we would be able to focus on a subsequent move, which is finding the d-man we really need. In the meantime, give Perunovich and POJ ice time to see if we have anything with them. I don’t think we do with Perunovich, but we re-signed so let’s make him sink or swim for once and for all.

 

[BleedBlue14]

Well we aren’t going to swing that in a Krug trade. Our first order of business should be dumping him and his contract, and I like the Chariot idea as a depth piece to shore up the bottom pair and give us an element we need.

After that, we would be able to focus on a subsequent move, which is finding the d-man we really need. In the meantime, give Perunovich and POJ ice time to see if we have anything with them. I don’t think we do with Perunovich, but we re-signed so let’s make him sink or swim for once and for all.

I don’t know, I could see an argument either way. We have the cap space to try and find the guy prior to needing to move Krug. I could understand it either way

 

[Xerloris]

Btw I would totally take Trouba. Just imagine, Trouba vs Kadri. Someones gonna get hurt eventually.

 

[Reality Czech]

Grumbling from the usual suspects. I don't want to watch a bottom feeder that's there on purpose.

Blues fans have been spoiled over the years having competitive teams more often than not. I wonder how fans would react if we were really, really bad for an extended period of time. It would suck big time.

 

[Celtic Note]

Blues fans have been spoiled over the years having competitive teams more often than not. I wonder how fans would react if we were really, really bad for an extended period of time. It would suck big time.

It doesn’t really matter because it didn’t happen.

People will in part chose what direction they want to take based on their past experiences. That’s in addition to their ambitions, their logic, their gratification needs and probably a multitude of other factors.

For Blues fans that was a long time of being a good regular season team but a poor playoff team until we finally broke through 25 years later.

Any way, why would we be really, really bad for a long time? These fears from some for us becoming the next Buffalo or whoever are unfounded. Our front office isn’t trash. Our scouting staff isn’t trash. And if they were, then no direction we take would be a good one.

 

[Reality Czech]

It doesn’t really matter because it didn’t happen.

People will in part chose what direction they want to take based on their past experiences. That’s in addition to their ambitions, their logic, their gratification needs and probably a multitude of other factors.

For Blues fans that was a long time of being a good regular season team but a poor playoff team until we finally broke through 25 years later.

Any way, why would we be really, really bad for a long time? These fears from some for us becoming the next Buffalo or whoever are unfounded. Our front office isn’t trash. Our scouting staff isn’t trash. And if they were, then no direction we take would be a good one.

All I'm saying is that bottoming out and getting a high pick is no guarantee of success. Fans imagine a few down years, then draft a superstar and contend for another Cup soon after that but that's not always how it works. For every Washington, Chicago and Pittsburgh, there are also teams like Arizona, Columbus, Buffalo, Detroit, and others that are still waiting to see the benefits of their bottom feeder years. I'm more grateful that we have a competitive team and would lose a lot of interest if we were stuck in last place for a few years, but sure everyone has their own vision of what's best for the team and their fandom.

 

[Xerloris]

Blues fans have been spoiled over the years having competitive teams more often than not. I wonder how fans would react if we were really, really bad for an extended period of time. It would suck big time.

Well do you see how much whining there is just the last 2 years? I imagine normal people wouldn't come here anymore from all the crybaby shit.

 

[Reality Czech]

Well do you see how much whining there is just the last 2 years? I imagine normal people wouldn't come here anymore from all the crybaby shit.

Yeah, if this is how people react having a slightly below average team then I can't imagine how they'd react if we were bottom 5 in the league.

 

[Celtic Note]

All I'm saying is that bottoming out and getting a high pick is no guarantee of success. Fans imagine a few down years, then draft a superstar and contend for another Cup soon after that but that's not always how it works. For every Washington, Chicago and Pittsburgh, there are also teams like Arizona, Columbus, Buffalo, Detroit, and others that are still waiting to see the benefits of their bottom feeder years. I'm more grateful that we have a competitive team and would lose a lot of interest if we were stuck in last place for a few years, but sure everyone has their own vision of what's best for the team and their fandom.

I think most would agree that bottoming out isn’t a Cup guarantee.

There is a certain degree of luck involved with getting a high pick in a good draft, but that’s less of an issue when you do it more than once (see EJ vs Petro as the Blues example).

The clear strategy with the very most Cup success is bottoming out. I don’t think that is even debatable given what Chicago, Pittsburgh and Tampa were able to do. The Blues haven’t sniffed that level of performance (and Chicago may be poised to do it again, which would piss me off to no end, especially if we flail about like the Backes years).

Bottoming out may also have the most failures, but most of those times in the recent past are due to ineptitude. Or in the case of Arizona, it was intentionality. Again, I don’t think there is a high probability of us being that bad if for no other reason then our scouting staff. All the GM and Owner have to do with the team construction with a scouting staff like ours is not get in the way early on and you can be setup extremely well for a long time. We cannot have meddling owners like Buffalo (we don’t). And we can’t have a GM that mismanages cap and roster construction like an Edmonton.

Yeah, if this is how people react having a slightly below average team then I can't imagine how they'd react if we were bottom 5 in the league.

Well the Blues have done this in recent history. So it shouldn’t be hard to imagine. And that was with a much worse situation where the Blues ownership left the state of the franchise in a heaping mess.

 

[Eldon Reid]

I have liked what we have done so far this off-season. I think this will be another similar year to last year. Borderline playoff team.

I think next year is when this team starts making moves. Next year we have Krug, Faulk, Leddy, & Saad going from NTC to M-NTC.

 

[Blueston]

Well do you see how much whining there is just the last 2 years? I imagine normal people wouldn't come here anymore from all the crybaby shit.

There are normal people here?

 

[Celtic Note]

There are normal people here?

Probably not given we are avid fans (short for fanatic). lol

 

[PocketNines]

I think most would agree that bottoming out isn’t a Cup guarantee.

There is a certain degree of luck involved with getting a high pick in a good draft, but that’s less of an issue when you do it more than once (see EJ vs Petro as the Blues example).

The clear strategy with the very most Cup success is bottoming out. I don’t think that is even debatable given what Chicago, Pittsburgh and Tampa were able to do. The Blues haven’t sniffed that level of performance (and Chicago may be poised to do it again, which would piss me off to no end, especially if we flail about like the Backes years).

Bottoming out may also have the most failures, but most of those times in the recent past are due to ineptitude. Or in the case of Arizona, it was intentionality. Again, I don’t think there is a high probability of us being that bad if for no other reason then our scouting staff. All the GM and Owner have to do with the team construction with a scouting staff like ours is not get in the way early on and you can be setup extremely well for a long time. We cannot have meddling owners like Buffalo (we don’t). And we can’t have a GM that mismanages cap and roster construction like an Edmonton.


Well the Blues have done this in recent history. So it shouldn’t be hard to imagine. And that was with a much worse situation where the Blues ownership left the state of the franchise in a heaping mess.

I agree with your side of this argument but I feel like the entire argument is missing an obvious point ... yes, you have to outcompete your rivals because there is no guarantee! You have to savvily out draft them, you have to savvily control your payroll better than them, you have to out trade them, you have to out chess them basically. Yes, that is the project we are all chiming in to say how it should go forward. The reason I agree with your side of the argument is that while both situations (bottoming out and trying to avoid it at all costs) carry risk, bottoming out and you capitalizing on it gives you the best chance of success. I'd rather steer a course and be excellent at navigating it.

I am pleasantly surprised with Tony Feltrin after we lost the draft guru who drafted the Cup team, so I actually feel somewhat confident the Blues wouldn't biff it if they got a high draft pick.

 

[Celtic Note]

I agree with your side of this argument but I feel like the entire argument is missing an obvious point ... yes, you have to outcompete your rivals because there is no guarantee! You have to savvily out draft them, you have to savvily control your payroll better than them, you have to out trade them, you have to out chess them basically. Yes, that is the project we are all chiming in to say how it should go forward. The reason I agree with your side of the argument is that while both situations (bottoming out and trying to avoid it at all costs) carry risk, bottoming out and you capitalizing on it gives you the best chance of success. I'd rather steer a course and be excellent at navigating it.

I am pleasantly surprised with Tony Feltrin after we lost the draft guru who drafted the Cup team, so I actually feel somewhat confident the Blues wouldn't biff it if they got a high draft pick.

Agreed. You have to be a strong organization across the board.

And to clarify, if we had a mediocre amateur scouting department, I would not advocate for 2-3 year bottoming out period like I think we needed to do starting this draft or the year prior. You have to be above average for that to work. And a longer term bottoming out with a bad scouting staff yields you in abyss for a long time. I totally get that.

But we don’t have bad scouts. We have a team that has significantly outperformed their draft position. So why anyone would think we will be one of the worst teams for an extended period time (on par with the very worst of the worst), when we have a team that consistently over performs? That isn’t something that tracks with me.

 

[PocketNines]

Yeah, if this is how people react having a slightly below average team then I can't imagine how they'd react if we were bottom 5 in the league.

Well once again it's just not even making an attempt in imagination because just to give you a reality check, my user date proves I was here when the team was a bottom 5 team in the league and you know how we reacted? We accepted reality, we had a GM and President who was straight with us and said: we are building through the draft the right way, we tried treading water for 25 years and being not near the Cup so let's try a new way.

So we all bought in and we saw it work. One of the reasons a lot of us don't even respect the argument you're making as a baseline assumption is it's an argument contrary to actual very recently lived and rewarded experience. It sounds absurd. It is absurd.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

On Reddit today, I saw an interesting stat - that from 90-99 only 1 first overall pick won a SC - Levacalier with Tampa. Every other 1st didn't win. From 2001-2009, 6 players won, EJ being the only one who didn't win with his drafted team. From 2010-2019, only 2 players have won (so far) MacKinnon and Ekblad. For 2020-2024, 0 first overalls have won a cup.

So if we go back 35 years and look at every 1st overall pick, only 9 of them have ended up winning a Cup, and one of them wasn't even with the team that drafted him. Now there's still a lot of runway left for some of these guys, but it does go to show you that bottoming out and even drafting 1st overall isn't a surefire way to win a Cup.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The thing with bottoming out, what level of bad are we wanting to reach and how are we getting there? There's a difference between going for Chicago/San Jose/Anaheim/Columbus level bad or are we talking the more Calgary/Ottawa/Seattle/Jersey/etc. level bad? To get a guaranteed top 5 pick, we have to do a lot of gutting. To get a likely top 10 team that has a better chance at moving up in the lotto, that's a bit easier to do and still an achievable quick turnaround.

 

[BrokenFace]

On Reddit today, I saw an interesting stat - that from 90-99 only 1 first overall pick won a SC - Levacalier with Tampa. Every other 1st didn't win. From 2001-2009, 6 players won, EJ being the only one who didn't win with his drafted team. From 2010-2019, only 2 players have won (so far) MacKinnon and Ekblad. For 2020-2024, 0 first overalls have won a cup.

So if we go back 35 years and look at every 1st overall pick, only 9 of them have ended up winning a Cup, and one of them wasn't even with the team that drafted him. Now there's still a lot of runway left for some of these guys, but it does go to show you that bottoming out and even drafting 1st overall isn't a surefire way to win a Cup.

There is no surefire way to win a cup. I don't want the Blues to bottom out, but if you look at cup winning teams since the full season lockout you can't ignore that bottoming out for top 5 picks was a key factor for most of those teams to win a cup. I'm skeptical of anyone saying that our market can't handle a full rebuild when we went through the worst on and off ice scenario after the full season lockout and there was never a possibility of the team leaving. That is an interesting stat, but I don't think just looking at 1st overalls is the best way to evaluate how important high picks are to building a contender. And that says nothing about how never rebuilding is how you end up like the Wild, Flames, or Flyers.

I also don't believe "bottoming out" means 5+ years of being non-competitive, but that's more of how our local ESPN radio describes bottoming out than anyone here, and they very clearly barely know what's going on around the league as they talk about what the Blues should or shouldn't do. I think next year (and probably the year after while we wait for the bad contracts to expire) we should aim for a top 10 pick because our vets aren't good enough to contend and our prospects aren't ready to make an impact yet. 2 or 3 top 10 picks (plus the later 1sts we traded for) might be the sweet spot of getting high end prospects, staying competitive enough to keep fans interested, and keeping enough competent vets around so the prospects are developing in a good environment.

Also, with so much expansion, my idea of what a true contender looks like needs to change. With talent spread around more teams, it isn't as important that your #1 D is a Norris candidate most years. You can win a cup with a lesser #1 D as long as you have elite depth behind him.

 

[542365]

Florida was led by Barkov(2nd overall), Ekblad(1st overall), Reinhart(2nd overall), and Tkachuk(6th overall who they traded a former 3rd overall to get). Also important to the team were Sam Bennett(4th), OEL(6th). 4 of their top 5 scorers were top 10 picks(3 inside the top 5). Then there’s Ekblad leading the defense. They’re pretty clearly an example of a team who benefitted heavily from high picks.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The definitely benefitted from high picks, 3 of them are living up to that standard, and only 1 of those was drafted by them. Tkachuk did require Huberdeau in a trade who was a 3rd overall pick though. It's like on our run with Schenn and Bouwmeester. They definitely played important roles, but you can get those players outside of the top 5 relatively easily or trade for them like we did for significantly less value.

We don't have to draft every single one of those players.

 

[BlueDream]

On Reddit today, I saw an interesting stat - that from 90-99 only 1 first overall pick won a SC - Levacalier with Tampa. Every other 1st didn't win. From 2001-2009, 6 players won, EJ being the only one who didn't win with his drafted team. From 2010-2019, only 2 players have won (so far) MacKinnon and Ekblad. For 2020-2024, 0 first overalls have won a cup.

So if we go back 35 years and look at every 1st overall pick, only 9 of them have ended up winning a Cup, and one of them wasn't even with the team that drafted him. Now there's still a lot of runway left for some of these guys, but it does go to show you that bottoming out and even drafting 1st overall isn't a surefire way to win a Cup.

The problem with this is those stats are cherry picked and don’t tell the full story. Let’s look at the percentages of 8th or 10th overall picks. I don’t have the numbers but I’m sure the amount of those guys that won the Cup are lower. Go back to 20th overall and it’s surely way lower.

The point is, having high picks helps. Literally nobody has ever said it guarantees a Cup.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

The thing is, most people around here seem to think that we can be bad for 1, maybe 2, seasons where we scoop a top pick and then go on to win. (A top pick in this case is top 5). What this shows is that a lot of teams don't do that to win. You look at the Crosby lead Penguins for instance - they have a 1, 2, 1, and 3 on that first Cup winning team, 2 of which (arguably three depending on how you feel about MAF) are generational. You have to be significantly bad for upwards of 4-5 years before you can usually pull out of it and start being competitive. Look at how many top picks people just rattled off for Florida. Look at how many top 5 picks Edmonton has. Colorado is another great example of a team with 4-5 top 5 picks before they won a Cup. Tampa is the only team that has broken that mold, and they won both Cups in COVID years.

The point of my previous post was to highlight that while yes, getting a top pick, or even 2 top picks might sound great in theory, most past winners have shown that you need a lot more then simply 1-2....it's usually more like 4-6.

I think we have a solid core that's been fairly competitive. I think we can always move someone if a true #1 guy becomes available and it matches our competitive window. In the last few years we've seen Sergachev, Byram, Chychrun, Pie, Hamilton, EK65, and Faber all moved (Some are closer to #1 then other, and I believe Faber is going to be a #1) - that's a lot of guys who are right around that level who have been available. Accumulating assets is important, but seeing how guys respond in the playoffs is also important too.

 

[westc2]

I think we'll be better this year than last year. Texier and Faksa are already significant upgrades and we didn't lose anyone good. Texier could have a break out season with the scenery change, similar to what happened with Buchnevich.

 

[Mike Liut]

I think we'll be better this year than last year. Texier and Faksa are already significant upgrades and we didn't lose anyone good. Texier could have a break out season with the scenery change, similar to what happened with Buchnevich.

I’m thinking the same thing, unless we lose Thomas, Parayko or Binny to injuries.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I think we'll be better this year than last year. Texier and Faksa are already significant upgrades and we didn't lose anyone good. Texier could have a break out season with the scenery change, similar to what happened with Buchnevich.

I’d be quite surprised if Texier broke out like Buchy did. He just doesn’t have that level of skill.

Really like adding him though and I think he’ll be a good fit.

Really like the add of Matthieu Joseph too. Very solid 3rd liner that brings speed and very good PK ability. Bonus we got a pick along with him.

I’m less excited about the Faksa deal. He’s not the player he used to be. I think he’d make a solid 4C though. But in his press conference, Army seemed to project him as the 3C. I think they’ll end up disappointed if that’s the case. I just don’t think he’s that level of player anymore.

I also liked the PO Joseph add. He’s still young and should at least be able to push Perunovich for minutes. His signing was probably bad news for Tucker. Tucker always has the chance to change minds in camp but as of today, I’d slot both Peru and POJ ahead of him.

The team is better today than it was at the end of the season. But not by a significant amount. And I think we’ll be lucky if the duo of Binny/Hofer can give us top-5 league-wide goaltending again. I expect them to stay in the mushy middle.

BUT, the once caveat is that they’ve improved the team slightly while also creating cap space. They currently have about $7M in space. Maybe an opportunity eventually comes along and having that cap room allows a lot of flexibility to make trades to improve the team.