Blues Trade Proposals Part X
- Thread starter EastonBlues22
- Start date
- Status
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
In response to the last question asked, yes I would trade Stewart for a UFA Callahan, knowing full well he's a rental.
Same. I think that makes us a much harder team to play against in the playoffs (if Callahan can stay healthy obviously) and is worth losing Stewart for nothing when we don't give in to Callahan's ridiculous demands for next contract
Inglorious Backes
Cursed
Stewart for Cally I would do no questions asked...which of course means it's never going to happen. Really I have no problem trading Stewie for any useful rental player who is gone this summer. Improving our club for a cup run AND opening up a good chunk of cap space for Army to play with sounds great.
I'm still holding on to the hope that there is one Eastern team desperate enough for some secondary scoring that is willing to overpay relative to his current production. All we need is one team to think they can "fix" Stewie by putting him in a new system.
I'm still holding on to the hope that there is one Eastern team desperate enough for some secondary scoring that is willing to overpay relative to his current production. All we need is one team to think they can "fix" Stewie by putting him in a new system.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,957
- 18,183
If I had a pick between Callahan and Legwand, I would choose Legwand because I know we'd be able to resign him at a fair price.
IMO, he's going to want to be with Nashville, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, or Minnesota. Detroit likely won't be interested, despite Legwand being from Detroit since they have Datsyuk, Weiss, and Sheahan. Minnesota has Koivu and some young centers and will probably focus on bigger ticket items like Vanek. Nashville will be out if he's traded IMO.
It comes down to us and Chicago IMO. Both teams have a need for him and both would be great fits. Both offer the ability to contend. Big difference is St. Louis is more of a true midwest, where as Chicago is a big market. I could definitely see Legwand preferring to play in a market like Nashville and St. Louis.
IMO, he's going to want to be with Nashville, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, or Minnesota. Detroit likely won't be interested, despite Legwand being from Detroit since they have Datsyuk, Weiss, and Sheahan. Minnesota has Koivu and some young centers and will probably focus on bigger ticket items like Vanek. Nashville will be out if he's traded IMO.
It comes down to us and Chicago IMO. Both teams have a need for him and both would be great fits. Both offer the ability to contend. Big difference is St. Louis is more of a true midwest, where as Chicago is a big market. I could definitely see Legwand preferring to play in a market like Nashville and St. Louis.
Last edited:
BadgersandBlues
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,819
- 2,089
The one thing no one is really talking about when it comes to Stewart......How absolutely stupid most NHL GMs are. Not only in terms of asset management, but also in terms of long-term view. Most NHL GMs aren't worried about next year, let alone two years from now. They live in the here and now. Go look at the quote Dave Nonis had when he signed David Clarkson. It was something along the lines of, "I'm not worried about what this deal looks like in year 5, because I know we have a good player coming in here in year 1." (Or something to that affect.) Basically, Nonis admitted that this deal will suck in the next couple of years, but today, he's getting a great player! (Yea, that's worked out well) This isn't just Nonis either, this is a mindset that pervades the NHL front office ranks, mainly b/c most GMs don't think they will last past 5 years, hence those crazy stupid deals will be a different GM's problem down the road. Hell, Pittsburgh gave up a late first round pick (Joe Morrow) for a guy we have on our 4th line when healthy (Brendan Morrow) just last year! All it takes is one. One crazy GM to make it all work. Someone under pressure to look like they're going "all in" (Remember Poile giving up a first round pick for Paul Gaustad? lololol) Who knows who that will be this year.
Chris Stewart has shown enough flashes to make GMs hungry. They think they can unlock that potential. I mean, he had the same knocks on him in Colorado that he has here, yet Army (imo one of the better talent assessors in the game) made him the centerpiece of a trade that involved our only (ever) #1 overall pick. Yea, he plays soft in our system, but look how many people still see him drop the mitts and claim that he's "tough" on our boards, even after the hundreds of posts trying to point out the fallacy of that logic. Some GMs think the same way.
I know we're all sick of Chris Stewart. I know a lot of people would trade him for some cheap seats at Busch and a cold beer. But I think we can actually trade him for something useful if we stay patient. I'm not going to shoot for the moon, and claim we can get a Stepan/Turris type for him straight up, but with a 1st round pick, and maybe a decent prospect, who knows what that will fetch. That's not too far off from most "Superstar" type deals, and I think we've build up enough depth to go after a depth-for-best-player type trade.
When I look at our team for the next 5 years, the one hole I see that has zero chance of being filled internally is our 2nd line Center position. I think a lot of GMs out there could be convinced Chris Stewart has some decent value. Of the players we're interested in moving, he's easily the one with the most value. We -need- a second line Center. Not another D-man (Cola isn't a great D-man, but if we have 2-3 injuries on our D in the playoffs, we're hosed anyway, plus our pipeline is pretty stocked), not another Goalie (I feel like Goalie is the one position you can actually find some solid deals in UFA, plus Allen is one of our top 3 prospects and clearly ready for NHL action next year). Sobotka and Berglund are not the answer. UFA isn't the answer, as everyone in UFA is either: A) Too old (VL) B) Too many injuries (Weiss) C) Too inconsistent (Grabovski/Roy) D) So stupid expensive it will cripple our franchise (Richards). Our team is primed to make Cup runs for the next 5-8 years. If we're trading Stewart, I want it to be in a package for a Center that's going to anchor our 2nd (and possibly first) line for the majority of that window. A package of Stewart+Rattie+First is a pretty fair package in comparison to what we've seen for other star players. Rick Nash comes to mind. If this is what it takes for us to get a really good (young) #2 C, then that's what we need to be doing.
Now I know the obvious counter to this is the Perron trade. I will admit that I have no answer for that, other then to claim there must have been something about Perron that just didn't go over well with management. Because when I look at Perron, the trade for MPS+2nd is utter trash. Even playing in our system he was worth way more then that. I'm not sure what happened with Armstrong there, but it's clear he crapped the bed with that trade. I'm just really hoping he doesn't do it twice in a row, b/c I think b/t Stewart and Perron, we should have easily been able to find a really solid youngish 2nd line Center, compared to the stuff getting thrown around the NHL in terms of trades over the last couple of years.
Chris Stewart has shown enough flashes to make GMs hungry. They think they can unlock that potential. I mean, he had the same knocks on him in Colorado that he has here, yet Army (imo one of the better talent assessors in the game) made him the centerpiece of a trade that involved our only (ever) #1 overall pick. Yea, he plays soft in our system, but look how many people still see him drop the mitts and claim that he's "tough" on our boards, even after the hundreds of posts trying to point out the fallacy of that logic. Some GMs think the same way.
I know we're all sick of Chris Stewart. I know a lot of people would trade him for some cheap seats at Busch and a cold beer. But I think we can actually trade him for something useful if we stay patient. I'm not going to shoot for the moon, and claim we can get a Stepan/Turris type for him straight up, but with a 1st round pick, and maybe a decent prospect, who knows what that will fetch. That's not too far off from most "Superstar" type deals, and I think we've build up enough depth to go after a depth-for-best-player type trade.
When I look at our team for the next 5 years, the one hole I see that has zero chance of being filled internally is our 2nd line Center position. I think a lot of GMs out there could be convinced Chris Stewart has some decent value. Of the players we're interested in moving, he's easily the one with the most value. We -need- a second line Center. Not another D-man (Cola isn't a great D-man, but if we have 2-3 injuries on our D in the playoffs, we're hosed anyway, plus our pipeline is pretty stocked), not another Goalie (I feel like Goalie is the one position you can actually find some solid deals in UFA, plus Allen is one of our top 3 prospects and clearly ready for NHL action next year). Sobotka and Berglund are not the answer. UFA isn't the answer, as everyone in UFA is either: A) Too old (VL) B) Too many injuries (Weiss) C) Too inconsistent (Grabovski/Roy) D) So stupid expensive it will cripple our franchise (Richards). Our team is primed to make Cup runs for the next 5-8 years. If we're trading Stewart, I want it to be in a package for a Center that's going to anchor our 2nd (and possibly first) line for the majority of that window. A package of Stewart+Rattie+First is a pretty fair package in comparison to what we've seen for other star players. Rick Nash comes to mind. If this is what it takes for us to get a really good (young) #2 C, then that's what we need to be doing.
Now I know the obvious counter to this is the Perron trade. I will admit that I have no answer for that, other then to claim there must have been something about Perron that just didn't go over well with management. Because when I look at Perron, the trade for MPS+2nd is utter trash. Even playing in our system he was worth way more then that. I'm not sure what happened with Armstrong there, but it's clear he crapped the bed with that trade. I'm just really hoping he doesn't do it twice in a row, b/c I think b/t Stewart and Perron, we should have easily been able to find a really solid youngish 2nd line Center, compared to the stuff getting thrown around the NHL in terms of trades over the last couple of years.
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
I agree, if Stewart could fetch either one, I'd do both but I'd do Legwand before Callahan for that reason that he could be resigned at a fair price and it still wouldn't preclude going after Stastny. Whereas Callahan would be pure gone. IMO Jaskin starts at RW on the 3d line whenever there's a spot for him, so it's not terrible to pay Stewart for a rental because that doesn't block Jaskin, who should be cheap and effective. But extending Legwand would be really helpful for this team. It gives them the ability to spend either more on a goalie or more on a guy like Stastny. I'd try Stastny first. Get him and trade Berglund or miss out on him and keep Berglund and spend a little more on a goalie.
Stewart for Legwand is the #1 trade I'm hoping for. #2 is hoping to get Miller but at my hard-bargain price. Callahan would be a decent rental but the max I'd pay is Stewart.
Stewart for Legwand is the #1 trade I'm hoping for. #2 is hoping to get Miller but at my hard-bargain price. Callahan would be a decent rental but the max I'd pay is Stewart.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,957
- 18,183
Agreed Badgers. GMs will likely believe they can get the mythological Stewart and not the real Stewart. Now this doesn't mean that we can get a top 10 pick, but it does mean that we can find another GM to make a hockey trade with.
Team Cozens
Registered User
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
Does your hard-bargain price include Rattie??
I've said before that what would mitigate the risk on Miller being a pure rental is if there were some residue regardless of what Miller does. So I would put Rattie in a deal where Grigorienko is coming back. With Hodgson, Girgensons and one of Reinhart/Bennett you guys should be ok with rebalancing the org a little bit from C to RW. Because C is a more sought-after position, Grigorienko has a little more value than Rattie, but not so much that it can't be balanced.
I'd do:
Miller
Grigorienko
for
Halak (totally optional)
Rattie
1st
3d
As for Halak, take him or don't, I'm fairly confident we could separately trade him at the worst to somewhere like Winnipeg for a conditional pick (if he re-signs with them).
Otherwise, yeah, I wouldn't trade Rattie for a rental. If I were going to do that, I'd wait til next year when I believe he'd have even more value at the deadline. He's really coming on strong in the AHL (leads his team in goals and points), and 12 more months of one AHL playoff run where he's got that clutch gene and more games next year when he should've bulked up more ... he'll be worth more as a trade asset as time goes on.
Team Cozens
Registered User
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
We've been at this a long time!
Actually, most of your fan base doesn't seem interested in including Grigorienko. For us, if Miller walks we still have a solid center prospect to show for the price we paid.
That's what I'm concerned about in a deal with just Miller. When he walks we'll have traded real futures value and have nothing to show for it. That would seem unfair to us.
When we bring this up most of you guys just tell us either of don't worry your pretty little heads of course he'll re-sign with you OR you say how it's worth it to take one shot.
But nobody ever argues with the reality that right now the chances are maybe 14% of the Blues winning the Cup and if we acquire Miller it's not like they start even topping 20%. More like 18%. (You gotta figure the Eastern team is at least 40% to win even if the Blues make the Finals, and then think about the percent chance of coming out of the West. Can't be better than 30% even with Miller. 30% x 60% = 18%) That's a really small one-time percentage uptick. Even if you argue the Blues are more like 20% to win the West w/o Miller, then you're going from 12% to 18%. Six percent increase one time? For an unconditional first round pick? Others may have a different philosophy but I wouldn't do it. And six percent IMO is honestly a best-case increase. It could just as easily be more like one or two percent.
Ron C.
Registered User
P9s, I posted this on the Trade Rumors board. Would you to: Miller for Halak, Bennington and a 1st?
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
How many times do I have to explain my feelings about an unconditional first round pick for a rental?
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,957
- 18,183
Trade deadline isn't until the 5th, so lets say at least twice per day for 18 more times, but lets just round it off to 30 with discussions intensifying on here as we get closer to the deadline.
Ron C.
Registered User
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,492
I'd do this deal also, as a Buffalo fan. I can't believe you're the same guy that's been arguing with me in thread after thread, actually.
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
This is not the first time I've posted it though. A few weeks ago I said the same thing in at least two threads including a main board thread and probably our trade board thread. I've always been consistent. And when most of your fans saw it they said no, so I haven't been talking about it til today again.
Every time I say conditional pick I explain why we can't bear full rental risk (or shouldn't want to IMO). It's the genuine concern. So find another way to balance that risk and now you've taken care of the needs I've been insistent on from Day One.
I'm pretty sure Blues fans will back me up that whatever their opinion of my opinion on this matter is, my opinion has been totally consistent.
Sometimes I have gone into Miller's stats as a way of showing that the Buffalo urging upon us of cut and paste extrapolation of Miller's would-be performance from bad team to good team is doubtful. And I've battled back against the other main urging of Buffalo fans that he would re-sign because we're a contender (and thus don't worry about it, just go ahead and bear all the risk of an unconditional pick). But I've never said he wouldn't be an upgrade on Halak. Miller/Elliott fills me as a fan and likely the team on the ice with more confidence than Halak/Elliott. So I've never said I wouldn't pay anything, just not as much as some other Blues fans would pay, for consistently stated reasons.
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
P9 you flip flop all the time who you kidding?
No but seriously what our opinionated buddy has always argued makes sense, even more so with this latest report that Murray isn't going to trade Miller (AKA nobody giving him what Sabres & their fans are hoping for).
I see no reason to up our offer from Halak + conditional 2nd + mid prospect with the 2nd becoming a first if he re-signs. If someone tops it, then I'll bite but until then....
No but seriously what our opinionated buddy has always argued makes sense, even more so with this latest report that Murray isn't going to trade Miller (AKA nobody giving him what Sabres & their fans are hoping for).
I see no reason to up our offer from Halak + conditional 2nd + mid prospect with the 2nd becoming a first if he re-signs. If someone tops it, then I'll bite but until then....
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Just want to point out that Stewart was, in fact, not the center piece of that trade. Armstrong is on record as saying that deal doesn't happen without the inclusion of Shattenkirk and that Shatty was the key player in the deal.
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
How do we like these deals? (not going to main board either way just because...yeah)
-2014 Edmonton 2nd round pick*
-Sergey Andronov
-2015 St. Louis 3rd round pick
-Ryan Miller (25% retained)
*pick becomes St. Louis 2014 1st if Miller re-signs
-----------------------
-Jaroslav Halak
-Winnipeg 2014 4th round pick*
*pick becomes Winnipeg 2014 2nd round pick if Halak re-signs
----------------------
Chris Stewart
Yannick Veilleux
2014 St. Louis 2nd round pick
Ryan Callahan
Blues turn Halak and Stewart into Miller and Callahan.
Next two drafts, Blues would still have their first round picks (or Edm's 2nd + Ryan Miller signed).
Thoughts? (not sure if salary totally works or not. May need Buffalo to retain 25 percent or so)
-2014 Edmonton 2nd round pick*
-Sergey Andronov
-2015 St. Louis 3rd round pick
-Ryan Miller (25% retained)
*pick becomes St. Louis 2014 1st if Miller re-signs
-----------------------
-Jaroslav Halak
-Winnipeg 2014 4th round pick*
*pick becomes Winnipeg 2014 2nd round pick if Halak re-signs
----------------------
Chris Stewart
Yannick Veilleux
2014 St. Louis 2nd round pick
Ryan Callahan
Blues turn Halak and Stewart into Miller and Callahan.
Next two drafts, Blues would still have their first round picks (or Edm's 2nd + Ryan Miller signed).
Thoughts? (not sure if salary totally works or not. May need Buffalo to retain 25 percent or so)
BadgersandBlues
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2011
- 1,819
- 2,089
I've read that article, but I think you're misunderstanding it. It seems pretty reasonable that EJ for Stewart was the main part of the deal. However, we needed a D-man coming back, so as not to "Fill a hole by creating a new one" type issue. We agreed to add JayMac, and a conditional 1st for their 2nd. But we needed a D-man coming back, not only to fill a hole but to balance the trade. The price we set on it was Shattenkirk. If they hadn't included him, the deal never gets done, true. But I think Stewart for EJ was clearly the core of the deal. At the time, we needed scoring, and at the time, the Avs needed a #1 Dman. Still do, in fact. (I think everyone sees what I did there.)
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
My reaction to that would be the same as EJ's in your avatar
If we're going for the straight nostalgia, let's add Jagr as well
EDIT: The rest of that blog says that Minnesota, Washington, and Colorado are all looking at Brodeur as well. Have to admit it'd be funny if there was a market for Brodeur because he's cheap but not Miller.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
I wouldn't be surprised if this is just Army trying to put pressure on Buffalo. I see no reason whatsoever to trade for Brodeur. Trying to get some more leverage is the only thing I can see.
- Status
