Grade Our Trade Deadline
- Thread starter Majorityof1
- Start date
EastVillageBlues
Registered User
- Feb 18, 2019
- 1,079
- 686
Would have liked to moved more salary from the D corps.
Other than that, it went as well as could have realistically hoped for.
Other than that, it went as well as could have realistically hoped for.
Shwabeal
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2016
- 820
- 494
Based on who/what we had to sell, he did a great job with the returns. He also got out in front of a market that ended up having tons of pieces move, many of which were much better from the buyers end of things.
Anyone thinking we were somehow going to reshape the defense at the deadline doesn't realize how difficult that would be in season. If you're deciding your grade on who he didn't get rid of, you were never going to be happy post TDL anyway.
Anyone thinking we were somehow going to reshape the defense at the deadline doesn't realize how difficult that would be in season. If you're deciding your grade on who he didn't get rid of, you were never going to be happy post TDL anyway.
AjaxManifesto
Pro sports is becoming predictable and boring
Majorityof1
Registered User
I think we did as good as expected but nothing was above and beyond. Getting our big deals out early might have been good because we guaranteed our first were in this draft. I think the overall value of packages peaked after we already traded our top assets though as the arms race kicked in. That is a narrow window to hit as it soon plummeted when team's spent all the premium assets they wanted to and only had 2025 picks left, Ideally, we would have waited a little longer, but not too much longer. I can't fault going early and guranteeing what you got.
I have been vocal about not liking the Kap and Vrana pick ups. No need to rehash that here. But those aren't bad enough to really swing the needle much.
Not trading Krug was disappointing but expected. Not trading Parayko was good.
I gave it a B-/C+ but might change it to a B. It was good, but not spectacular. There was no deal that I thought, wow, we screwed them. Or man, that was better than I thought we could do.
I have been vocal about not liking the Kap and Vrana pick ups. No need to rehash that here. But those aren't bad enough to really swing the needle much.
Not trading Krug was disappointing but expected. Not trading Parayko was good.
I gave it a B-/C+ but might change it to a B. It was good, but not spectacular. There was no deal that I thought, wow, we screwed them. Or man, that was better than I thought we could do.
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,713
- 5,307
Hard to argue with the returns for the pending UFAs. He pretty much got what his asking price was for all of them. Even exceeded my expectations on selling Barby. Getting control of the entire RFA period of a player projected to be a 3C (Dean) for 25ish games of a 3LW (Barbashev) is simply a great return.
I’m iffy on the Kapanen waiver claim given the opportunity cost of his relatively high cap hit but he’s looked good his 2 games with the Blues. I could certainly become a believer in him.
I like the Vrana reclamation project. Can he get back to being the player he was before the shoulder surgery and stint in Player Assistance? Hard to say but at 50% retention, he’s got a pretty low bar to hop over. I believe in 2nd chances and will trust Army has assessed the character of this guy and is comfortable with him moving forward.
Trading Krug would’ve been ideal but I’m not going to fault Army for not getting that done. The other 31 GMs aren’t stupid and can pretty clearly see the player Krug is now and the contract he has. That’s going to be a really tough sell for Army.
I’m iffy on the Kapanen waiver claim given the opportunity cost of his relatively high cap hit but he’s looked good his 2 games with the Blues. I could certainly become a believer in him.
I like the Vrana reclamation project. Can he get back to being the player he was before the shoulder surgery and stint in Player Assistance? Hard to say but at 50% retention, he’s got a pretty low bar to hop over. I believe in 2nd chances and will trust Army has assessed the character of this guy and is comfortable with him moving forward.
Trading Krug would’ve been ideal but I’m not going to fault Army for not getting that done. The other 31 GMs aren’t stupid and can pretty clearly see the player Krug is now and the contract he has. That’s going to be a really tough sell for Army.
Last edited:
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
I'd have voted A- if it was a standalone option, but I voted A. I think it was closer to A than B+, so the A-/B+ combo didn't sit quite right for me. I'm inclusing the totality of everything since the All Star break.
Priority #1 Returning good value for Tarasenko and ROR. I give this an A+. By my count, there were 4 total 2023 1st round picks traded for straight rentals this deadline. LA traded their 1st (which becomes a 2nd if the miss the playoffs) for Gavrikov and Korpisalo. Boston traded their 1st for Orlov/Hathaway and we got the other two. The rest of the 1sts moved this deadline were either for guys with term or they were 2024 1sts. Army pulled the trigger early to ensure that we got 1sts in this draft and the market proved this decision correct. Teams pivoted to guys with term or started making lower-value offers for rentals. Getting 2023 1sts (along with other assets by packaging lesser rentals) was a home run. Blais (subsequently extended for $1M) is a great little throw in to the deal.
Priority #2: Returning good value for Barby. I give this an A-. A 30th overall center in his D+2 season is a pretty nice return given the season Barby was having. I think Dean becomes our 3rd or 4th best prospect and he turns pro next year. Fits the timeline fairly well even if the long term upside isn't incredible. I like it better than a mid-late 2nd. Not sure I like it better than another 1st in this year's draft, but given where the market went that was probably not realistic. I like it more than a late 2024 or 2025 1st.
Priority #3: Moving or acquiring a D man? I give this a B+. I'd have loved to get out from Krug's deal, but that felt like a long shot. I wasn't interested in moving Parayko/Faulk barring a massive return and I wouldn't have traded Parayko (with retention to get his AAV down to $6M) for what the Preds got for Ekholm. I'm also satisfied that we didn't outbid the prices for Chychrun or Ekholm. There is still plenty of work to do on the blueline, but looking at the deadline market, I'm satisfied that we stayed out of it for now.
Those were my 3 priorities in order of importance. #1 and #2 were way more important than #3 because they were the only ones with expiration dates. Moves to bolster the 2023/24 forward group were unexpected. I think Vrana, Kap, and Blais on 1 year deals for less than a combined $7M is a very, very low risk, with a moderately high return set of moves. That type of money to fill 2-3 top 9 wing spots is on the cheap side of things and the term gives us flexibility to hold, flip, or extend any of them in the next 12 months depending how the season goes. My expectations are fairly low, but they fit the 'what the hell are we next year' uncertainty very well. I'd go B+ on these gambles.
Priority #1 Returning good value for Tarasenko and ROR. I give this an A+. By my count, there were 4 total 2023 1st round picks traded for straight rentals this deadline. LA traded their 1st (which becomes a 2nd if the miss the playoffs) for Gavrikov and Korpisalo. Boston traded their 1st for Orlov/Hathaway and we got the other two. The rest of the 1sts moved this deadline were either for guys with term or they were 2024 1sts. Army pulled the trigger early to ensure that we got 1sts in this draft and the market proved this decision correct. Teams pivoted to guys with term or started making lower-value offers for rentals. Getting 2023 1sts (along with other assets by packaging lesser rentals) was a home run. Blais (subsequently extended for $1M) is a great little throw in to the deal.
Priority #2: Returning good value for Barby. I give this an A-. A 30th overall center in his D+2 season is a pretty nice return given the season Barby was having. I think Dean becomes our 3rd or 4th best prospect and he turns pro next year. Fits the timeline fairly well even if the long term upside isn't incredible. I like it better than a mid-late 2nd. Not sure I like it better than another 1st in this year's draft, but given where the market went that was probably not realistic. I like it more than a late 2024 or 2025 1st.
Priority #3: Moving or acquiring a D man? I give this a B+. I'd have loved to get out from Krug's deal, but that felt like a long shot. I wasn't interested in moving Parayko/Faulk barring a massive return and I wouldn't have traded Parayko (with retention to get his AAV down to $6M) for what the Preds got for Ekholm. I'm also satisfied that we didn't outbid the prices for Chychrun or Ekholm. There is still plenty of work to do on the blueline, but looking at the deadline market, I'm satisfied that we stayed out of it for now.
Those were my 3 priorities in order of importance. #1 and #2 were way more important than #3 because they were the only ones with expiration dates. Moves to bolster the 2023/24 forward group were unexpected. I think Vrana, Kap, and Blais on 1 year deals for less than a combined $7M is a very, very low risk, with a moderately high return set of moves. That type of money to fill 2-3 top 9 wing spots is on the cheap side of things and the term gives us flexibility to hold, flip, or extend any of them in the next 12 months depending how the season goes. My expectations are fairly low, but they fit the 'what the hell are we next year' uncertainty very well. I'd go B+ on these gambles.
A
The TDL was fairly straight forward, and he got solid value out of all our upcoming UFAs.
Big work is this summer, we'll see how the D can be retooled.
The TDL was fairly straight forward, and he got solid value out of all our upcoming UFAs.
Big work is this summer, we'll see how the D can be retooled.
Majorityof1
Registered User
Yeah, sorry about that. I toyed with doing A+, A, A- etc but felt it was too many options to get a good consensus. Felt the A, B, C, D was too few for any nuance. Especially as I think anyone who votes D or F is trolling. So I compromised by lumping the + and minus together.
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
A+. We did better than I could have hoped really. Got 2 2023 1sts and a recent first round prospect for ROR/Tarasenko/Barbie.
Love taking the swing on Vrana and Kapanen. We’re stuck anyway, let’s take some one year flyers.
The reason I give an A+ for the deadline specifically is because there was nothing more that could be done. Moving any of these defensemen I don’t believe to be possible. It’s Army’s fault we’ve got these albatross anchors making up the d core but credit is given for getting the absolute most out of these UFAs.
Maybe this summer we’ll find someone dumb to take Krug or Parayko. I doubt but there’s at least a small minute chance there. There was zero chance it would happen at the deadline so I’m not going to penalize him in any way
Love taking the swing on Vrana and Kapanen. We’re stuck anyway, let’s take some one year flyers.
The reason I give an A+ for the deadline specifically is because there was nothing more that could be done. Moving any of these defensemen I don’t believe to be possible. It’s Army’s fault we’ve got these albatross anchors making up the d core but credit is given for getting the absolute most out of these UFAs.
Maybe this summer we’ll find someone dumb to take Krug or Parayko. I doubt but there’s at least a small minute chance there. There was zero chance it would happen at the deadline so I’m not going to penalize him in any way
I came here to ask if it was our turn again yet…LOL... Mostly joking but I agree with you.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,341
- 6,308
We got expected returns (no real steals or losses), traded all the guys I would have expected/realistically hoped, didn’t move one of our bad D contracts and didn’t upgrade our D or C positions.
We did take some rolls of the dice with Kap and Vrana. Maybe those are useful, but I would have rather had cap space available for trying to fill one of our big holes. If either guy makes big strides then maybe it was worth it, but I would rather be real bad next year than gain a few points from wingers that were not high on our needs list.
B+
We did take some rolls of the dice with Kap and Vrana. Maybe those are useful, but I would have rather had cap space available for trying to fill one of our big holes. If either guy makes big strides then maybe it was worth it, but I would rather be real bad next year than gain a few points from wingers that were not high on our needs list.
B+
Last edited:
I think you are missing Horvat deal? Or did you put that in the "term" category because it was moved again before the deadline for a guy with term?
Unfortunately rangers scouts had seen vlad play this year, so that limited return.
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
With what leverage?
Tarasenko had wanted out of St. Louis for a year and a half. The fact Armstrong gambled with the expansion draft with Tarasenko going unclaimed at his lowest point of value and then trading him for a 1st over a year later is a pretty good return.
So let's look at the results of the deadline.
OUT:
Tarasenko
Mikkola
ROR
Acciari
Barbashev
Dylan McLaughlin (most likely career miinor leaguer)
7th round 2025
IN:
Blais (resigned after to 1/1)
Vrana at 2.625 mill for this and next year
Guadette (for the Tbirds)
Skinner
Abramov
Dean
2 2023 1st round picks
1 2023 3rd round pick
1 2024 2nd round pick
1 2024 3rd round pick (most likely because Rangers should make playoffs)
Waiver claim:
Kapanen
OUT:
Tarasenko
Mikkola
ROR
Acciari
Barbashev
Dylan McLaughlin (most likely career miinor leaguer)
7th round 2025
IN:
Blais (resigned after to 1/1)
Vrana at 2.625 mill for this and next year
Guadette (for the Tbirds)
Skinner
Abramov
Dean
2 2023 1st round picks
1 2023 3rd round pick
1 2024 2nd round pick
1 2024 3rd round pick (most likely because Rangers should make playoffs)
Waiver claim:
Kapanen
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,621
- 6,465
I'd have to give him an A grade.
Selling the UFA's early was a smart move and I'm very happy with the extra picks and Dean.
Have to say I love our waiver pickup of Kapanen and the trade for Vrana. We needed bodies on expiring contracts and we got two that can play a lot of minutes and help reduce the workload of our vets next year. We had to have that whether we were paying the 7 mil for Vrana, Kapanen and Blais or just using a bunch of league minimum filler. This way was a much better path than wading into UFA where every player wants term. You can fill bottom 6 forward spots with plugs but you need some decent players if they're playing top 6 and these two are capable of that at least and only had a year of term.
The other huge benefit to having them is it erases any notion that our forward prospect cavalry is coming next season. It's not and that's great because it means in all likelihood that Bolduc and Dean can get acclimated to pro hockey without any NHL expectations for next year. Snuggles goes back to school for his D+2 and we continue to break in Toropchenko, Neighbours and Alexandrov.
I was concerned Doug might get too frisky with our recently acquired draft capital and trade for Chychrun but we dodged that bullet and are now safely headed to the draft with our pocket full of 1sts. I count this as a major victory, at least until I have to worry about him trading stuff at the draft where I will again enter full clench mode.
I don't understand why anyone thought Doug could actually move D with term at the deadline, it was never really a possibility. Mikkola was cheap and expiring, that's the only reason we were able to move him. We're going to have to eat two years and 17 mil off Torey's contract before it gets moved and that's assuming he doesn't drop off between now and then. I don't see a buyout happening, we'll attempt to rehab his value and eventually trade him imo.
Selling the UFA's early was a smart move and I'm very happy with the extra picks and Dean.
Have to say I love our waiver pickup of Kapanen and the trade for Vrana. We needed bodies on expiring contracts and we got two that can play a lot of minutes and help reduce the workload of our vets next year. We had to have that whether we were paying the 7 mil for Vrana, Kapanen and Blais or just using a bunch of league minimum filler. This way was a much better path than wading into UFA where every player wants term. You can fill bottom 6 forward spots with plugs but you need some decent players if they're playing top 6 and these two are capable of that at least and only had a year of term.
The other huge benefit to having them is it erases any notion that our forward prospect cavalry is coming next season. It's not and that's great because it means in all likelihood that Bolduc and Dean can get acclimated to pro hockey without any NHL expectations for next year. Snuggles goes back to school for his D+2 and we continue to break in Toropchenko, Neighbours and Alexandrov.
I was concerned Doug might get too frisky with our recently acquired draft capital and trade for Chychrun but we dodged that bullet and are now safely headed to the draft with our pocket full of 1sts. I count this as a major victory, at least until I have to worry about him trading stuff at the draft where I will again enter full clench mode.
I don't understand why anyone thought Doug could actually move D with term at the deadline, it was never really a possibility. Mikkola was cheap and expiring, that's the only reason we were able to move him. We're going to have to eat two years and 17 mil off Torey's contract before it gets moved and that's assuming he doesn't drop off between now and then. I don't see a buyout happening, we'll attempt to rehab his value and eventually trade him imo.
Personally I think Army and Blues get a solid A.
Only 1 thing I wish Army would have done with deadline was use our last salary retention for either another prospect or pick. I
Moving dman was going to be near impossible at the deadline.
Only 1 thing I wish Army would have done with deadline was use our last salary retention for either another prospect or pick. I
Moving dman was going to be near impossible at the deadline.
I think that's coming in the offseason. For deadline moves, that was always going to be a bit farfetched.
Its awfully nice to have 3 first round picks burning a hole in our pocket. The draft should be fun to watch, but I think Armstrong will probably use that currency to help move D with term and make room/acquire a long-term top pairing guy, or at least long-term top 4. The Blues defense this past year was less than the sum of the parts. Those players individually look like they should make up a better defense. Why didn't they?
I hope Armstrong has a good honest answer to that. I have to believe some of it was coaching. But I also believe some of it was flawed chemistry. I hope he has a good notion for how to influence that. The changing of the Blues top 4 defense will be the most compelling detail of the rebuild.
I hope Armstrong has a good honest answer to that. I have to believe some of it was coaching. But I also believe some of it was flawed chemistry. I hope he has a good notion for how to influence that. The changing of the Blues top 4 defense will be the most compelling detail of the rebuild.
- Feb 12, 2008
- 19,931
- 9,462
i just don’t see anybody taking on any of those contracts, except Parayko. If Army wants to do a quick re-tool, we better keep Parayko.
im surprised we got a 1st for Tarasenko. He sucked all year imo.
