Blues 2024 Off-Season Trade Proposals Thread

[Brian39]

I don't know much about McGroarty as a prospect but I think he seems just a bit of an entitled and personally I don't much care for entitled . If you promise him a NHL job now if he actually performs he's gonna demand 11m/yr for 5 years like that one guy in Toronto. Can't build teams around a few entitled players.

Well, except for the Panthers with Matthew Tkachuk. And Vegas with Eichel. And the Blues with O'Reilly.

But yeah, other than 3 of the last 5 Cup winners (and 6 Cups awarded), pretty good proof of concept that you can't build winners around guys who put their own interest ahead of the team who drafted them. All 3 of those guys were obvious drags on their new teams who won Cups in spite of them.

 

[ezcreepin]

Unless I've missed something, McGroarty (nor his agent) has said that about the Jets.

The only reports I have seen are that he has told the Jets that he won't sign for them this summer because they won't offer assurance that he will play in the NHL. Moreover, neither the Jets nor McGroarty have publicly commented. I haven't seen a single report even suggesting that McGroarty has indicated that he will play 2 more NCAA seasons to go UFA in favor of signing with the Jets. I haven't seen a single report that McGroarty is unwilling to sign with the Jets in the spring after his NCAA season.

There has been significantly more speculation about the status of the relationship between McGroarty and the Jets than there has been about Snuggy and the Blues. I think McGraorty's lack of comment has fueled that to a degree, but I would also expect more coverage/speculation about a Canadian market with a reputation for being unappealing to players than a smaller market US team. Especially since the Jets are currently a couple steps better than the Blues.

But in terms of what has actually been said, our expectation that Snuggy will sign in the spring and McGroarty won't is based pretty much entirely on speculation.

Idk if we read the same article, but one of them I read said that McGroarty and his agent are either not willing to talk or have stopped communication (for now) with the Jets. Given the comments about him wanting every opportunity to make the NHL team and the nature of the situation, I think silence says a lot about what he and his camp are thinking. I won't be bold enough to say that the situation can't be fixed between he and the Jets, but at the moment it doesn't look super promising. Having said that, we saw Debrusk play out his contract after asking for a trade multiple times, Garland asked for a trade before the Canucks were good and has seemingly rescinded, Tarasenko was a good soldier and played out all but the last few months of his contract.

That's not to say that the situations are the same since McGroarty isn't signed, but there is potentially a path for him joining the Jets.

 

[Brian39]

Idk if we read the same article, but one of them I read said that McGroarty and his agent are either not willing to talk or have stopped communication (for now) with the Jets. Given the comments about him wanting every opportunity to make the NHL team and the nature of the situation, I think silence says a lot about what he and his camp are thinking. I won't be bold enough to say that the situation can't be fixed between he and the Jets, but at the moment it doesn't look super promising. Having said that, we saw Debrusk play out his contract after asking for a trade multiple times, Garland asked for a trade before the Canucks were good and has seemingly rescinded, Tarasenko was a good soldier and played out all but the last few months of his contract.

That's not to say that the situations are the same since McGroarty isn't signed, but there is potentially a path for him joining the Jets.

The only articles I've seen mentioning this were summarizing Friedman's discussion of the situation on the 32 Thoughts podcast on June 22. Here is the quote from Friedman (conversation starts at 29:20 of the podcast if you want to listen):

“So I’m gonna be really careful here Jeff because there’s are a lot of answers I don’t have. His family advisor is not talking and the Jets are not talking but the one thing I can tell you is that I have heard his name has come up in trade discussions. That the Jets have discussed trading and other teams have discussed acquiring McGroarty’s rights. Now you’ll remember a few months ago after the NCAA season McGroarty announced he was going back to Michigan for his junior year and the Jets have his rights for two more years. And again I’m not gonna guess on anything here but I’m simply going to say that I’ve heard his name has come up in trade conversations. So we’ll see where this all goes over the next couple of weeks. He’s a good player and he would be coveted.”

The headline became "Jets and McGroarty are not talking" even though that is pretty clearly not what Friedman was reporting with his comment. Friedman was trying to say that the Jets and McGroarty weren't sharing any info with him not that they had stopped talking to each other.

I have seen zero reports that either side has broken off communication with the other party (besides articles sloppily half-quoting Friedman).

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

The only articles I've seen mentioning this were summarizing Friedman's discussion of the situation on the 32 Thoughts podcast on June 22. Here is the quote from Friedman (conversation starts at 29:20 of the podcast if you want to listen):

“So I’m gonna be really careful here Jeff because there’s are a lot of answers I don’t have. His family advisor is not talking and the Jets are not talking but the one thing I can tell you is that I have heard his name has come up in trade discussions. That the Jets have discussed trading and other teams have discussed acquiring McGroarty’s rights. Now you’ll remember a few months ago after the NCAA season McGroarty announced he was going back to Michigan for his junior year and the Jets have his rights for two more years. And again I’m not gonna guess on anything here but I’m simply going to say that I’ve heard his name has come up in trade conversations. So we’ll see where this all goes over the next couple of weeks. He’s a good player and he would be coveted.”

The headline became "Jets and McGroarty are not talking" even though that is pretty clearly not what Friedman was reporting with his comment. Friedman was trying to say that the Jets and McGroarty weren't sharing any info with him not that they had stopped talking to each other.

I have seen zero reports that either side has broken off communication with the other party (besides articles sloppily half-quoting Friedman).

Feel like there was more reporting after EF broke this. He has reportedly told them he wants out bc they wouldn’t burn year last spring. That is step beyond what you quoted.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Yea I mean if I was Ruter, I'd be like, look, if you aren't going to tell me I'm for sure going to play in the NHL all year, I'll just go back to college and chase co-eds/play hockey for another season there and then join you in the spring.

That's 100% what I would do in that situation, f*** playing in the AHL when you can go to a great school and play hockey instead.

 

[Xerloris]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1819088643966787615

I did not expect a Blues player to be on this list. I would assume someone on this forum is in shambles right now.

Well, except for the Panthers with Matthew Tkachuk. And Vegas with Eichel. And the Blues with O'Reilly.

But yeah, other than 3 of the last 5 Cup winners (and 6 Cups awarded), pretty good proof of concept that you can't build winners around guys who put their own interest ahead of the team who drafted them. All 3 of those guys were obvious drags on their new teams who won Cups in spite of them.

I mean aside from literally none of those players being built around, you're absolutely right. They were all traded for once the team was already pretty well set.

Oh also, Actually, no. While many would agree that few means three or more, the dictionary definition is, “not many but more than one.” So, a few cannot be one, but it can be as low as two

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Yea I mean if I was Ruter, I'd be like, look, if you aren't going to tell me I'm for sure going to play in the NHL all year, I'll just go back to college and chase co-eds/play hockey for another season there and then join you in the spring.

That's 100% what I would do in that situation, f*** playing in the AHL when you can go to a great school and play hockey instead.

Interesting perspective. Some members at HFJets believe/think that he's overplayed his hand, but, then again, they are understandably hurt. It would be unfortunate if he had carried with him through his NHL career a Lindros-type stigma of being talented, but perceived as malcontent. I know McGroarty is nowhere near Eric Lindros (Top 100 NHL Greatest), but others on the main board have brought this up.

At some point, most people are going to forget all about it.

 

[LogosBlue]

Any interest in Mailloux from the Canadiens? Rumors they are wanting to move him. Don't know much about him other than he is a good 1st rnd prospect RH shot defense that could possibly step in right away.

 

[bleedblue1223]

What rumors, the same rumors of Pierre McGuire saying they should target Snuggerud because we need defense after Krug got hurt, despite us signing Suter?

I'd trade for him, but I'd understand people not wanting him due to the incident in Sweden.

 

[Brian39]

Feel like there was more reporting after EF broke this. He has reportedly told them he wants out bc they wouldn’t burn year last spring. That is step beyond what you quoted.

And again, unless I have missed something, that is not what has been reported. What has been reported is that their unwillingness to burn a year this past spring combined with the disagreement about whether he should be in the NHL or AHL in 2024/25 is what led to his decision to return to the NCAA for 2024/25. That is what Friedman reported on the subsequent episode of 32 Thoughts and that is the only reporting I have seen.

I have seen zero reporting that he wants out of Winnipeg. I have seen zero reporting that he is unwilling to sign with Winnipeg after the conclusion of his 2024/25 college season. There has been no report that he has requested a trade.

There has been a report that his camp has alerted other teams interested in acquiring him that he isn't willing to sign this summer to go play for their AHL team.

"I'm returning for my junior NCAA season instead of signing to play in the AHL" is very different from "I want out" or "I don't want to play for the Jets."

Which brings me back to my overall point: The narrative surrounding the McGroarty has gotten out of hand with a lot of people (media included) making assumptions that they probably wouldn't be making if he wasn't a Winnipeg prospect.

I think that McGroarty is trying to get himself into the NHL for October of 2024, but if he is not successful in that goal then I believe his intention is to sign a deal in the spring of 2025 to burn 2024/25 off his ELC. I think that is very much the case if Winnipeg still owns his rights this spring.

 

[BleedBlue14]

Mailloux is interesting. He's a good player, but there was a lot of baggage with him in his draft year right? If i remember right teams weren't supposed to draft him but Montreal did anyways. I wonder what teams think the optics would be of acquiring him. I know it's a different situation than Mitchell Miller, but that situation didn't go over very well for Boston.

Then the question becomes what is Montreal wanting in return - not sure what i'd be comfortable with moving for him. Prior to the Jiricek draft pick I would've been a lot more receptive to trading for him.

 

[Brian39]

Any interest in Mailloux from the Canadiens? Rumors they are wanting to move him. Don't know much about him other than he is a good 1st rnd prospect RH shot defense that could possibly step in right away.

I have quite a bit of hesitancy there.

"Montreal wanting to move him" is a pretty big red flag for me given his history and what he has done on-ice. The Habs took a significant reputation hit to draft him at 31st overall and since then he has developed pretty much exactly how you would want on-ice. He's a 6'3" RHD who just put up 47 points in the AHL at age 20. But now after eating the bad press, spending a 31st overall pick, and seeing him have a great rookie AHL season they suddenly want to move him?

With his history, I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it isn't a personality or locker room concern.

He made a terrible decision as a teenager and I hope that he has genuinely worked toward self-improvement. I'm not of the mind that he should never be allowed to play in the NHL and I bet there are plenty of other NHL players who did the same thing he did in junior. But actions do have consequences and one of the consequences of his actions is that he is going to be under a bigger microscope than other young players.

I'm not interested in giving up a market-value haul for a guy with his level of on-ice performance and if Montreal is willing to move him for less then that raises concerns that they haven't been impressed with his off-ice performance. I'm not sure what kind of trade would make me feel anything but extremely nervous.

 

[LogosBlue]

Mailloux is interesting. He's a good player, but there was a lot of baggage with him in his draft year right? If i remember right teams weren't supposed to draft him but Montreal did anyways. I wonder what teams think the optics would be of acquiring him. I know it's a different situation than Mitchell Miller, but that situation didn't go over very well for Boston.

Then the question becomes what is Montreal wanting in return - not sure what i'd be comfortable with moving for him. Prior to the Jiricek draft pick I would've been a lot more receptive to trading for him.

He is alot closer to being NHL ready than Jiricek. Would you give up a Bolduc and another minor prospect? Word is the ask is Snuggerud and i would take a hard pass on that offer if i were the Blues.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

He is alot closer to being NHL ready than Jiricek. Would you give up a Bolduc and another minor prospect? Word is the ask is Snuggerud and i would take a hard pass on that offer if i were the Blues.

Are you talking about the Pierre interview that's going around? Because that wasn't a rumor that was just him spitballing what he would do if he was in charge of Montreal.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Are you talking about the Pierre interview that's going around? Because that wasn't a rumor that was just him spitballing what he would do if he was in charge of Montreal.

Exactly, that wasn't an actual rumor, especially since the lead was, we will want a defenseman due to the Krug injury.

 

[LogosBlue]

Are you talking about the Pierre interview that's going around? Because that wasn't a rumor that was just him spitballing what he would do if he was in charge of Montreal.

Yes, I'm assuming that's where all the chatter is coming from. The truth behind that is Montreal kinda does have a glut of young defensive prospects (nice problem to have) and would like some offensive help and it's an obvious rational to take from a strength to shore up a weakness. And that's all i'm doing here too is spitballin to see what response it would get.

I think Mailloux is an outstanding prospect that could eventually slot into a top pair D. The Sweden stuff aside, I'd be willing to work out a deal that would make both sides happy if that were the offer from them.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

And again, unless I have missed something, that is not what has been reported. What has been reported is that their unwillingness to burn a year this past spring combined with the disagreement about whether he should be in the NHL or AHL in 2024/25 is what led to his decision to return to the NCAA for 2024/25. That is what Friedman reported on the subsequent episode of 32 Thoughts and that is the only reporting I have seen.

I have seen zero reporting that he wants out of Winnipeg. I have seen zero reporting that he is unwilling to sign with Winnipeg after the conclusion of his 2024/25 college season. There has been no report that he has requested a trade.

There has been a report that his camp has alerted other teams interested in acquiring him that he isn't willing to sign this summer to go play for their AHL team.

"I'm returning for my junior NCAA season instead of signing to play in the AHL" is very different from "I want out" or "I don't want to play for the Jets."

Which brings me back to my overall point: The narrative surrounding the McGroarty has gotten out of hand with a lot of people (media included) making assumptions that they probably wouldn't be making if he wasn't a Winnipeg prospect.

I think that McGroarty is trying to get himself into the NHL for October of 2024, but if he is not successful in that goal then I believe his intention is to sign a deal in the spring of 2025 to burn 2024/25 off his ELC. I think that is very much the case if Winnipeg still owns his rights this spring.

Not sure whether you missed the reporting or just the implication behind it, but Athletic Jets reporter added more color after EF’s initial report. He wants out.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5583575/2024/06/22/winnipeg-jets-rutger-mcgroarty-trade/?source=user_shared_article

 

[BleedBlue14]

He is alot closer to being NHL ready than Jiricek. Would you give up a Bolduc and another minor prospect? Word is the ask is Snuggerud and i would take a hard pass on that offer if i were the Blues.

Personally I'm not sure I or the Blues front office would move either for him.

I don't have access to much about the player's profile/personality etc. But as Brian stated I would be extremely hesitant. I get that a lot of the reasoning has to do with them drafting Reinbacher and having Guhle. But look at a team like New Jersey. They had Hamilton, Siegenthaler, Nemec and Hughes and still went out and added Dillon and Pesce. You can't have too many good defenseman. There has to be a reason why they would entertain moving him.

I could see some reasoning for moving Bolduc for Mailloux 1-1. I wouldn't add anything else, and it would still carry some risk, but in terms of balancing out our pool it could probably help the situation. I think our pool is alot closer to balanced now though after this last draft, but i'm likely higher on Ralph than a lot of people seem to be.

 

[Majorityof1]

Mailloux is a admitted sex offender. He should still be in prison. In Missouri according to my light research, what he admitted to but was not charged with is a Class D Felony punishable by up to 7 years in jail (there is a chance for probation) and I would assume being added to the sex offender registry. But Sweden went light on him for whatever reason. He is the type of player that would signal to me a front office is morally corrupt if they signed him. My tenure as a Blues fan would end effective immediately.

 

[Brian39]

Not sure whether you missed the reporting or just the implication behind it, but Athletic Jets reporter added more color after EF’s initial report. He wants out.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5583575/2024/06/22/winnipeg-jets-rutger-mcgroarty-trade/?source=user_shared_article

I had not seen that specific article. Thanks for sharing.

That article absolutely does not support the claims that McGroarty's camp is refusing to speak with Winnipeg, has publicly stated that he doesn't want to play in Winnipeg. or that he has requested a trade. Those are the specific claims that I have been refuting and none of them are reported there. A league source and beat writer speculation that he believes he has a better path to the NHL elsewhere and will thus be traded does not create an implication that any of those claims are true.

Maybe it's splitting hairs, but the implication I glean from that article is that the player's priority is getting into the NHL, not out of Winnipeg. I don't see anything suggesting that he wouldn't sign in Winnipeg today if they tell him he's got an NHL job for 2024/25. I don't see anything suggesting that he believes 2 more years in Michigan in order to become a UFA is a more desirable option than signing in Winnipeg in the spring. I see an implication that he is trying to get into the NHL next year, not that he's done with Winnipeg.

 

[Memento]

Mailloux is a admitted sex offender. He should still be in prison. In Missouri according to my light research, what he admitted to but was not charged with is a Class D Felony punishable by up to 7 years in jail (there is a chance for probation) and I would assume being added to the sex offender registry. But Sweden went light on him for whatever reason. He is the type of player that would signal to me a front office is morally corrupt if they signed him. My tenure as a Blues fan would end effective immediately.

Yeah, I'm with you on this. This is not a mistake made like Tony Washington's (former NFL Draft prospect, a sex offender who should've never been on the list, given his utterly-broken family and situation) actions. Mailloux knowingly filmed a woman in a sexual position and shared it with others on his team to brag about it.

Mailloux's only a little bit better than Mitchell Miller and Michael McLeod.

 

[Brian39]

Mailloux is a admitted sex offender. He should still be in prison. In Missouri according to my light research, what he admitted to but was not charged with is a Class D Felony punishable by up to 7 years in jail (there is a chance for probation) and I would assume being added to the sex offender registry. But Sweden went light on him for whatever reason. He is the type of player that would signal to me a front office is morally corrupt if they signed him. My tenure as a Blues fan would end effective immediately.

The Missouri statute you are referring to is 573.110 (Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images). A conviction under that statute is a Class D Felony as you stated, but is not a sex offense that requires registration.

That said, the authors of the statute fully botched it and (in my opinion unintentionally) made it extremely difficult to prosecute cases where the image shared wasn't shared specifically for revenge. In order to gain a conviction, the state must prove that the person shared the image with the intent to harass, threaten or coerce the person depicted in the image. Unfortunately, the intent element would not necessarily be met in the scenario where a person confesses "I sent this graphic, private sex tape to my buddy without the girl's consent because I thought my buddy would like it and I didn't think she would ever find out." They marketed this bill as a response to revenge porn where people were posting stuff online to get even with exes (or scammers who used the threat of leaking nudes to get money out of people). But in doing so, they didn't craft it to include secretly filming another in the act and then passing it around to your buddies for clout. I know several prosecutors who are extremely frustrated with this statute. It is ridiculous that "she didn't even know I was filming and I never thought she'd find out I sent it to my friend" is an actual defense to this statute.

If he had done exactly what was alleged/admitted in Missouri, I don't believe that he would have violated a criminal law. He'd be subject to a civil suit, but I do not believe that he would be convicted under the statute you are talking about. I think the state may have been able to make a harassment case for his communications with her after the fact, but those details are murkier and it would have been very tough. Realistically, if Missouri tried to go at him as hard at they could, he definitely wouldn't have gotten prison, he might have gotten probation, and he very likely would have gotten an opportunity to keep a conviction off his record.

None of that changes my opinion of his conduct and I'm not trying to change your opinion on his conduct.

But in a large number of areas (including the state the Blues play in) what he did is not a sex offense, does not require registration, would almost never result in prison time for a 1st offender, and in many areas is not even a criminal offense.

 

[Majorityof1]

The Missouri statute you are referring to is 573.110 (Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images). A conviction under that statute is a Class D Felony as you stated, but is not a sex offense that requires registration.

That said, the authors of the statute fully botched it and (in my opinion unintentionally) made it extremely difficult to prosecute cases where the image shared wasn't shared specifically for revenge. In order to gain a conviction, the state must prove that the person shared the image with the intent to harass, threaten or coerce the person depicted in the image. Unfortunately, the intent element would not necessarily be met in the scenario where a person confesses "I sent this graphic, private sex tape to my buddy without the girl's consent because I thought my buddy would like it and I didn't think she would ever find out." They marketed this bill as a response to revenge porn where people were posting stuff online to get even with exes (or scammers who used the threat of leaking nudes to get money out of people). But in doing so, they didn't craft it to include secretly filming another in the act and then passing it around to your buddies for clout. I know several prosecutors who are extremely frustrated with this statute. It is ridiculous that "she didn't even know I was filming and I never thought she'd find out I sent it to my friend" is an actual defense to this statute.

If he had done exactly what was alleged/admitted in Missouri, I don't believe that he would have violated a criminal law. He'd be subject to a civil suit, but I do not believe that he would be convicted under the statute you are talking about. I think the state may have been able to make a harassment case for his communications with her after the fact, but those details are murkier and it would have been very tough. Realistically, if Missouri tried to go at him as hard at they could, he definitely wouldn't have gotten prison, he might have gotten probation, and he very likely would have gotten an opportunity to keep a conviction off his record.

None of that changes my opinion of his conduct and I'm not trying to change your opinion on his conduct.

But in a large number of areas (including the state the Blues play in) what he did is not a sex offense, does not require registration, would almost never result in prison time for a 1st offender, and in many areas is not even a criminal offense.

Interesting. You are right, it doesn't change my opinion, but I concede you are more well versed in criminal law than I. I didn't realize it required that type of intent. I did say it was light research. That does seems like a big oversight in the law. They could have put mens rea requirement without it needing intent for revenge or blackmail, then added those as escalators.

Either way, it should be illegal. It is should require registration. And it should ruin his life as he ran the risk of ruining hers.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I had not seen that specific article. Thanks for sharing.

That article absolutely does not support the claims that McGroarty's camp is refusing to speak with Winnipeg, has publicly stated that he doesn't want to play in Winnipeg. or that he has requested a trade. Those are the specific claims that I have been refuting and none of them are reported there. A league source and beat writer speculation that he believes he has a better path to the NHL elsewhere and will thus be traded does not create an implication that any of those claims are true.

Maybe it's splitting hairs, but the implication I glean from that article is that the player's priority is getting into the NHL, not out of Winnipeg. I don't see anything suggesting that he wouldn't sign in Winnipeg today if they tell him he's got an NHL job for 2024/25. I don't see anything suggesting that he believes 2 more years in Michigan in order to become a UFA is a more desirable option than signing in Winnipeg in the spring. I see an implication that he is trying to get into the NHL next year, not that he's done with Winnipeg.

"At first, this difference in opinion didn’t appear to necessitate McGroarty’s exit from the organization. The relationship has changed since the start of McGroarty’s offseason, though. He no longer believes his future is with the Jets."

I think you are reading this too literally. That nobody wants to go on the record is because that doesn't serve anyone's interest. If the club came back and promised a roster spot would he sign? Perhaps, but that isn't how the Jets typically operate' they like to overbake their kids. The kid is frustrated by the Jets and has asked to be traded. That is the logical conclusion from reading this article and other reporting on the situation.

 

[Brian39]

"At first, this difference in opinion didn’t appear to necessitate McGroarty’s exit from the organization. The relationship has changed since the start of McGroarty’s offseason, though. He no longer believes his future is with the Jets."

I think you are reading this too literally. That nobody wants to go on the record is because that doesn't serve anyone's interest. If the club came back and promised a roster spot would he sign? Perhaps, but that isn't how the Jets typically operate' they like to overbake their kids. The kid is frustrated by the Jets and has asked to be traded. That is the logical conclusion from reading this article and other reporting on the situation.

And that quote is fully the author's opinion. That is not attributed to his source, who is not presented as a team source or a source from McGroarty's camp (although 'league source' could theoretically be an agent). That is the author's summary of the situation, not a report of what either party has said. It is a hell of a leap to get from that writer's opinion statement to 'the player has obviously requested a trade even though the lone source in the article didn't say that.'