Blues Trade Proposals 2021-2022 Part 3

[sfvega]

Tkachuk is only 6 months older than Kyrou and has averaged a point per game over the past 4 years. He has many prime years remaining. I’d hate to lose Kyrou or buchy or any of our top prospects, but let’s be clear. None of them are likely to ever be as impactful as Tkachuk is now. And none of them should be off the table in a deal for Tkachuk. The only question to me is how many and in what combination are we willing to deal.

Kyrou absolutely should be off the table to be traded to a team with no leverage. I don't know why people want DA, who has proven to be a great GM, to overpay just to get the hometown boy at all costs. Nobody offered us a franchise winger with control for the last year of Petro. Why bail them out?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Kyrou absolutely should be off the table to be traded to a team with no leverage. I don't know why people want DA, who has proven to be a great GM, to overpay just to get the hometown boy at all costs. Nobody offered us a franchise winger with control for the last year of Petro. Why bail them out?

First, If Tkachuk is willing to sign somewhere else, Calgary has leverage bc they can pit us against other team. Second, We don’t know what was available for Petro bc we weren’t going to trade our #1 defenseman as we were kicking off our Cup defense. And Petro wasn’t 24 a year out from his free agency. Third, Kyrou is fine player but has yet to prove he is franchise player.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Tkachuk is only 6 months older than Kyrou and has averaged a point per game over the past 4 years. He has many prime years remaining. I’d hate to lose Kyrou or buchy or any of our top prospects, but let’s be clear. None of them are likely to ever be as impactful as Tkachuk is now. And none of them should be off the table in a deal for Tkachuk. The only question to me is how many and in what combination are we willing to deal.

Trading for Tkachuk significantly weakens this team, regardless if Kyrou's involved or not. I don't want Tkachuk's contract when defense is a huge hole both on the NHL roster and in the AHL for the top 4.

Remember when people (I wasn't one of those people who had foresight) that said trading for Miller wouldn't help solve the Blues problems and scoring was the issue? Trading for Tkachuk would be like that.

 

[sfvega]

First, If Tkachuk is willing to sign somewhere else, Calgary has leverage bc they cannot us against other team. Second, We don’t know what was available for Petro bc we weren’t going to trade our #1 defenseman as we were kicking off our cup defense. And Petro wasn’t 24 a year out from his free agency. Third, Kyrou is fine player but has yet to prove he is franchise player.

Half the appeal of Tkachuk is that he's from here and wants to be here, yet he's willing to box us out to S&T elsewhere? Makes sense.

The point isn't what age Petro is, but rather to ask do you think anyone made a super aggressive offer when we were in a pickle? I honestly don't think so.

I didn't say franchise player, I said franchise winger and going to Calgary he absolutely would be.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Half the appeal of Tkachuk is that he's from here and wants to be here, yet he's willing to box us out to S&T elsewhere? Makes sense.

The point isn't what age Petro is, but rather to ask do you think anyone made a super aggressive offer when we were in a pickle? I honestly don't think so.

I didn't say franchise player, I said franchise winger and going to Calgary he absolutely would be.

Gaudreau wanted to be in Philly or Jersey and ended up in Columbus. If we don’t meet his and Flames ask Nashville or Dallas may be as close as MT gets.

I think if you look at eichel deal you will see a template for what this deal could look like.

Not sure how you can be franchise winger if not a franchise player, but if your definition is that he is best winger on team then even Barbie could be franchise winger for flames at this point.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Trading for Tkachuk significantly weakens this team, regardless if Kyrou's involved or not. I don't want Tkachuk's contract when defense is a huge hole both on the NHL roster and in the AHL for the top 4.

Remember when people (I wasn't one of those people who had foresight) that said trading for Miller wouldn't help solve the Blues problems and scoring was the issue? Trading for Tkachuk would be like that.

Wouldn’t that depend in what we give up and what he signs for? Because adding guy who is instantly out top offensive threat would only weaken us if we have to jettison more talent than what he can replace.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Wouldn’t that depend in what we give up and what he signs for? Because adding guy who is instantly out top offensive threat would only weaken us if we have to jettison more talent than what he can replace.

Yes.

And I'd argue giving up one of Kyrou/Tarasenko + Bolduc/Neighbours + multiple first round picks would make the Blues a worse team.

I don't think Flames would take Tarasenko if he isn't extended.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Yes.

And I'd argue giving up one of Kyrou/Tarasenko + Bolduc/Neighbours + multiple first round picks would make the Blues a worse team.

I don't think Flames would take Tarasenko if he isn't extended.

Dealing picks and prospects might be unwise, but it wouldn’t make us worse over next couple years. If we dealt, say, Tarasenko, Scandella, Bolduc, and a 1st it would seem highly likely that it would make us better over next couple years and probably benefit longer as neither the first or Bolduc are likely to be as good as Tkachuk. Now the above deal would require us to shed salary in following year, but who we deal and what we get for them would factor into the overall cost -benefit analysis.

And to be clear I’m not saying we should acquire him regardless of cost, just that he is great player and championship teams tend to be built around great players.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Dealing picks and prospects might be unwise, but it wouldn’t make us worse over next couple years. If we dealt, say, Tarasenko, Scandella, Bolduc, and a 1st it would seem highly likely that it would make us better over next couple years and probably benefit longer as neither the first or Bolduc are likely to be as good as Tkachuk. Now the above deal would require us to shed salary in following year, but who we deal and what we get for them would factor into the overall cost -benefit analysis.

And to be clear I’m not saying we should acquire him regardless of cost, just that he is great player and championship teams tend to be built around great players.

I respectfully disagree.

With how the roster is constructed currently, aka a ticking time bomb with guys currently or soon to be in their early 30s making up a decent part of the core, it's imperative to have younger and productive players with lower AAVs on the roster. When Schenn, Krug, Binnington, Parayko, Saad, and Faulk all lose a step (not counting ROR because I think he'll age like Bergeron) who will be on the roster to off-set their high salaries?

 

[Xanadude]

The salary just doesn't make sense for Kyrou to be in the trade. Again, we have to clear at least 8.5 million to fit in Tkachuk. Sure, it could be Krug and Kyrou or some other combo of defensemen and forwards, but a. that blows more holes in our lineup than I see DA going for and b. for the sake of simplicity, no matter what I see this potential trade (or trades) as Tkachuk replacing Tarasenko long-term.

91 walks after this year in all likelihood. So if we send out Tarasenko now (whether to Calgary (if he waives, which I find unlikely) or to an eastern team like NYI or CAR), we'd probably giving up some future pieces (from the Tarasenko trade and some of our own) to swap for a decade of one of the best wingers in hockey.

Or we wait this out and go for him in UFA and, best case scenario, Matt plays a year in Nashville or whatever and we sign him in UFA and we let Tarasenko go elsewhere. Again, Tarasenko is exchanged for Tkachuk.

Worst-case? Someone sells the farm to get Matt and he goes to a team like Nashville or Dallas, never hitting UFA and we're left with a Tarasenko-sized hole to fill after next year and no comparable winger on the market.

I love the idea of a sniping center like Bolduc or a physical guy with heart like Neighbors, but even if both guys reach their fullest potential they may not pan out to be what Tkachuk is now. Prospects are magic beans. And considering how long in the tooth our leadership core is (ROR, Faulk, Schenn, Parayko are no spring chickens comparatively), we may be better off going ham these next few years to try and get another cup with the guys left from 2019.

 

[sfvega]

Gaudreau wanted to be in Philly or Jersey and ended up in Columbus. If we don’t meet his and Flames ask Nashville or Dallas may be as close as MT gets.

I think if you look at eichel deal you will see a template for what this deal could look like.

Not sure how you can be franchise winger if not a franchise player, but if your definition is that he is best winger on team then even Barbie could be franchise winger for flames at this point.

I mean, the exciting part about Tkachuk was having someone who wants to come here and having some leverage and it being a real possibility. The issue with overpaying in prospects and overextending ourselves in terms of cap space, doesn't that open the door to many possibilities? Wouldn't it be easy to pass on Tkachuk if we can actually get a 1st pairing LD because young players/cap space/leverage aren't a sticking point?

It's a winger you build around. Tank at times wasn't our best player. Marner isn't the Leafs' franchise player. But they were guys that were/are a big part of team foundation. No one is building around Ivan Barbashev. Many teams, Calgary included, would love to build around Kyrou. Not sure if this is a good faith argument.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Just let ROR walk and allow Schenn to slide into 2C.

Tkachuk Thomas Kyrou
Saad Schenn Buchnevich

That's a damn good top 6.

Yes, that's an incredible top 6. With literally zero money left for our bottom 6.

Assuming 9.5 for MT and 7.5 for Kyrou, which is the bare minimum I think either of those players would cost, Thomas, Schenn, Kyrou, Saad, Buch, and MT would account for 41.93M against the cap. For reference, our ENTIRE forward core is going to cost 43.9M this year. That's 2M left for six players, even with all league minimum guys we still would be over. Now, we probably get another 1M next year to play with, and maybe we can trade Scandella, but then you're still talking about 6.25M for 6 spots.

From just a cap perspective, going after MT would signal a huge shift in our organizational philosophy. We'd basically become the Maple Leafs West.....a ton of high end talent getting paid top dollar and no depth to speak of.

Furthermore, I don't think letting ROR go for MT is the right call at all. Schenn is a solid player, but he's a clear downgrade from Thomas, and Thomas is a clear downgrade from ROR (For now). We would go from center depth of ROR-Thomas-Schenn to Thomas-Schenn-Brown?

That's a huge step backwards all the way down the chain. It's kinda like....oh I dunno...that one time we had a top 5 guy on right D, then another really good dude after him as our 2nd pairing stalwart. We let the top 5 guy walk and our D has been a mess pretty much ever since. Do we really want to make the same mistake but with our Centers? Remember when we all were like, holy shit, if we ever got a true top line center we'd be a legit contender? Then we got one and we won a Cup? And now we're all just ready to let that guy go for Matthew f***ing Tkachuk?

I think MT is a good player. I think I'd enjoy watching him on the Blues. But man, if he wants to play here so f***ing bad, then he can take a hometown discount so we can address other spots on our roster. Personally, I'd rather the Blues stick with the organizational philosophy that won us a Cup vs. going all googly-eyes like Kyle Dubas did.

 

[BleedBlue14]

Yes, that's an incredible top 6. With literally zero money left for our bottom 6.

Assuming 9.5 for MT and 7.5 for Kyrou, which is the bare minimum I think either of those players would cost, Thomas, Schenn, Kyrou, Saad, Buch, and MT would account for 41.93M against the cap. For reference, our ENTIRE forward core is going to cost 43.9M this year. That's 2M left for six players, even with all league minimum guys we still would be over. Now, we probably get another 1M next year to play with, and maybe we can trade Scandella, but then you're still talking about 6.25M for 6 spots.

From just a cap perspective, going after MT would signal a huge shift in our organizational philosophy. We'd basically become the Maple Leafs West.....a ton of high end talent getting paid top dollar and no depth to speak of.

Furthermore, I don't think letting ROR go for MT is the right call at all. Schenn is a solid player, but he's a clear downgrade from Thomas, and Thomas is a clear downgrade from ROR (For now). We would go from center depth of ROR-Thomas-Schenn to Thomas-Schenn-Brown?

That's a huge step backwards all the way down the chain. It's kinda like....oh I dunno...that one time we had a top 5 guy on right D, then another really good dude after him as our 2nd pairing stalwart. We let the top 5 guy walk and our D has been a mess pretty much ever since. Do we really want to make the same mistake but with our Centers? Remember when we all were like, holy shit, if we ever got a true top line center we'd be a legit contender? Then we got one and we won a Cup? And now we're all just ready to let that guy go for Matthew f***ing Tkachuk?

I think MT is a good player. I think I'd enjoy watching him on the Blues. But man, if he wants to play here so f***ing bad, then he can take a hometown discount so we can address other spots on our roster. Personally, I'd rather the Blues stick with the organizational philosophy that won us a Cup vs. going all googly-eyes like Kyle Dubas did.

Your argument is something that could certainly happen.

However, re-signing ROR doesn’t gaurantee we have a top 6 center. We’re pretty heavily married to Thomas growing and becoming a top end center. It’s certainly a gamble but it’s highly likely in year 4 of that contract with the cap rising it’s a steal.

If I’m honest with myself, I loved Pietro and I love watching ROR in the note. But Losing ROR as he’s already slowing down as opposed to missing out at the opportunity to add a guy who was pretty arguably a top 10 forward in the game last season in the beginning of his prime, the latter is going to be more hurtful if that is the reasoning.

Adding MT means extending our window pretty significantly. Yes, one of Krug, Faulk, Parayko will have to be moved out in order to do so towards the later years in their career. But having a young core of Tkachuk, Kyrou and Thomas is extremely enticing even if it means being a little less competitive for a year or two. These are elite contributors at 24-25 with no reason to believe they won’t continue to be.

 

[The Grouch]

Yes, that's an incredible top 6. With literally zero money left for our bottom 6.

Assuming 9.5 for MT and 7.5 for Kyrou, which is the bare minimum I think either of those players would cost, Thomas, Schenn, Kyrou, Saad, Buch, and MT would account for 41.93M against the cap. For reference, our ENTIRE forward core is going to cost 43.9M this year. That's 2M left for six players, even with all league minimum guys we still would be over. Now, we probably get another 1M next year to play with, and maybe we can trade Scandella, but then you're still talking about 6.25M for 6 spots.

You have touched on why it's so important that Neighbors and Bolduc are not moved in a hypothetical Tkachuk trade. The Blues will need cheap wingers(both this season and next) that can produce offense to offset the cost of Tkachuk's contract along with Thomas' and Kyrou's extensions. The organization has some important decisions to make in the coming days that may move them very close to over extending themselves with regards to the salary cap.

 

[The Note]

I know it is not going to happen for a variety of reasons, but if the Blues are really going big game hunting, I hope they check to see what the cost would be to get CGY to include Hanifin in a deal. If you're going big may as well go for it all.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I know it is not going to happen for a variety of reasons, but if the Blues are really going big game hunting, I hope they check to see what the cost would be to get CGY to include Hanifin in a deal. If you're going big may as well go for it all.

Yeah, if you can pull off a blockbuster like that, that's where I'd be fine paying up the price that Calgary would want. If you can get Tkachuk and at the same time solve the issue on the back-end, it's worth paying a higher price because we are right back into true contender status.

 

[PocketNines]

If we're going to clear cap for Tkachuk-Thomas-Kyrou-RoR it's most likely going to come from Krug-Saad-Scandella

Not Saad, he opened my eyes defensively in the playoffs. I would rather it be Barbashev than Saad even if Saad makes twice as much for one more season (2.25 vs 4.5)

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Not Saad, he opened my eyes defensively in the playoffs. I would rather it be Barbashev than Saad even if Saad makes twice as much right now (2.25 vs 4.5)

I'd agree. I like Sadd a lot. Especially as a defensive winger.

 

[Celtic Note]

It'll be tight and almost assuredly means Barbashev leaves next year, but we can narrowly fit ROR back if we rely on youth to fill the bottom six and keep a Kyrou deal below 8 million. If it comes down to ROR vs. Kyrou (which I think depends on if we get Tkachuk, if we don't have Tkachuk we keep both), you keep ROR unless he's going for a bag. His defense should age well and leadership doesn't age.

If we rely on youth, be better not be trading too much of it.

If we acquire MT, keep ROR and Kyrou, then we absolutely need cheap talented labor to ice Cup challenger.

 

[PocketNines]

Trading for Tkachuk significantly weakens this team, regardless if Kyrou's involved or not. I don't want Tkachuk's contract when defense is a huge hole both on the NHL roster and in the AHL for the top 4.

Remember when people (I wasn't one of those people who had foresight) that said trading for Miller wouldn't help solve the Blues problems and scoring was the issue? Trading for Tkachuk would be like that.

In fact I do remember this. I was very personally attacked by this community pretty harshly because it was a very strong resistance, it was a very clear resistance and it went against everything the people of this community snowballed into wanting. I literally left the site for five years after that onslaught.

This Tkachuk situation feels familiar, although there are key differences, first and foremost there is no single consensus for a trade and there is plenty of apprehension amid this situation unlike the Miller situation. Still, on balance it feels like there's a lot of ways the trades/moves could shake out that would be a major mistake in a situation where clearly no mistake NEEDS to be made right now. The Blues forwards are as potent as they have ever been, with more promising forward prospects on the cusp. This doesn't NEED to happen. The Blues' internal salary cap doesn't NEED to be blown open.

Not having a #1 defenseman on the team is the reason it kind of doesn't matter who they put at forward.

 

[Celtic Note]

Your argument is something that could certainly happen.

However, re-signing ROR doesn’t gaurantee we have a top 6 center. We’re pretty heavily married to Thomas growing and becoming a top end center. It’s certainly a gamble but it’s highly likely in year 4 of that contract with the cap rising it’s a steal.

If I’m honest with myself, I loved Pietro and I love watching ROR in the note. But Losing ROR as he’s already slowing down as opposed to missing out at the opportunity to add a guy who was pretty arguably a top 10 forward in the game last season in the beginning of his prime, the latter is going to be more hurtful if that is the reasoning.

Adding MT means extending our window pretty significantly. Yes, one of Krug, Faulk, Parayko will have to be moved out in order to do so towards the later years in their career. But having a young core of Tkachuk, Kyrou and Thomas is extremely enticing even if it means being a little less competitive for a year or two. These are elite contributors at 24-25 with no reason to believe they won’t continue to be.

You are not extending your window if you have to remove a Parayko or Faulk from our lineup to fit MT.

 

[bleedblue1223]

One of the big differences with the Miller situation, he was such a bad stylistic fit for how we played defense. It wasn't that he was inherently a bad goalie, but he was a goalie that liked seeing a lot of shots. Tkachuk at least fits our style, so it's not quite like trying to make a square peg fit inside a round hole.

I think the big thing with a potential Tkachuk deal is how much he signs for. Does he blow the cap structure or does he take a reasonable deal?

 

[PocketNines]

This is a true irresistible force meets immovable object situation.

The Tkachuks may be the greediest hockey family on the planet. Fat Keith, as an all time playoff loser, was a permanently scarring situation. TWENTY years ago the Blues paid him 11M in a year and that is still the highest salary ever on the Blues. He ended that 11M year with a classic 3-1 playoff choke, he led so many of those. It's who he was as an athlete, the guy you can absolutely come back on and defeat. The guy who absolutely cannot get it done. The guy who shrinks into nothing in a Game 7, his soul as an athlete.

OTOH, Armstrong refused to pay 2 x 4.75 for a PPG, all time beloved Blue who led the team in playoff scoring this past year with 9 goals in 12 games, he would rather have a team that wasn't good enough to contend than hand out an NMC.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Honestly, I just want to see your reaction if Army can pull off a move where Krug leaves, and Tkachuk comes. Assuming the deal is reasonable for you, would you be neutral, positive, or negative?

 

[PocketNines]

Honestly, I just want to see your reaction if Army can pull off a move where Krug leaves, and Tkachuk comes. Assuming the deal is reasonable for you, would you be neutral, positive, or negative?

I know what you're getting at but it's really tough to say. I ALWAYS start with, Blues lifting the Cup, what does that take and work backward. I see the defense as being hopelessly messy until they move Krug, and I see no Cup while the defense is hopelessly messy.

That said, two things. 1) Moving Krug is part of the equation, but adding a defenseman is also part of the equation. So moving Krug would be a major step but the job remains unfinished. This is why the unlikely "expanded deal including Hanifin" is more appealing.

2) A HUGE piece of this is the long term AAV. Where I am doing the kind of "talking myself into" stuff is around Armstrong's unwillingness to destroy the internal salary cap. How badly does that AAV handcuff the roster? Out of the necessity of seeming inevitability, I'm trying to tell myself a tale that I'm not sure I believe.

One thing we haven't discussed too much because it's easily defeated by Hometown Heroism is that Tkachuk often plays the game like a villain and sometimes like a cowardly turtle, and this will 100% become the Blues' identity to the rest of the league and we won't be able to disagree.