Confirmed with Link: Hayes traded to Pittsburgh

[Louie the Blue]

Apparently Armstrong and the Blues leadership value a potentially high 2nd round pick LESS than the value gained from getting rid of Kevin Hayes. Genuinely surprised since there haven’t been reports I’ve seen that he’s bad in the locker room or something (if anything it’s the opposite and people seem to like Hayes as a person).

I didn’t mind the gamble of bringing in Hayes originally and am willing to give Army some credit for publicly admitting his mistake…but still f***ing hate giving up a valuable pick at this point.

Would’ve much rather bought Hayes out or tried to give him away with retention for future considerations. Hell, would’ve rather just paid him his money and sent him to the AHL but kept the pick. But hey, it’s not my money.

I don’t like dumping a second to move Hayes, but if the extra cap is being used towards signing a UFA top 4 D, I can stomach it a bit more.

 

[Celtic Note]

I don’t like dumping a second to move Hayes, but if the extra cap is being used towards signing a UFA top 4 D, I can stomach it a bit more.

The problem with that is that UFA is unlikely to line up with our timeline, so why waste the money?

 

[STL fan in MN]

Apparently Armstrong and the Blues leadership value a potentially high 2nd round pick LESS than the value gained from getting rid of Kevin Hayes. Genuinely surprised since there haven’t been reports I’ve seen that he’s bad in the locker room or something (if anything it’s the opposite and people seem to like Hayes as a person).

I didn’t mind the gamble of bringing in Hayes originally and am willing to give Army some credit for publicly admitting his mistake…but still f***ing hate giving up a valuable pick at this point.

Would’ve much rather bought Hayes out or tried to give him away with retention for future considerations. Hell, would’ve rather just paid him his money and sent him to the AHL but kept the pick. But hey, it’s not my money.

This is where I’m at with it too. I’m curious if there’s more to the story as well as while he sucks as a player now, I didn’t see the urgency to get rid of him if the cost was that high.

But like you said, it’s not our money and it does save legit money. I’ll be curious if anything else leaks out that’d make it make more sense but I doubt it.

 

[ScratchCatFever]

good riddance, worst player I've seen in a Blues sweater in the past 10 years, woof...

Watching him always made me think of Adam Creighton.

 

[Louie the Blue]

The problem with that is that UFA is unlikely to line up with our timeline, so why waste the money?

Hypothetically if there was a defenseman that was 28 or 29 and you’re able to sign him to a 7 year deal, that would still fall in line with when the team should be contending again and there shouldn’t be a substantial drop in production for most defensemen when compared to forwards at that age

 

[Blueston]

Hypothetically if there was a defenseman that was 28 or 29 and you’re able to sign him to a 7 year deal, that would still fall in line with when the team should be contending again and there shouldn’t be a substantial drop in production for most defensemen when compared to forwards at that age

You got someone in mind? Skjei (sp)?

 

[tfriede2]

I just can’t envision DA doing this without something else in mind. My new theory is that the real dollars saved (DA strongly suggested that they didn’t do this for cap space) will be utilized in a trade of Krug with $$ retained.

 

[Louie the Blue]

You got someone in mind? Skjei (sp)?

Not particularly and from looking at the list of UFAs there doesn’t seem to much that stand out.

Could be Army pulls stuff out of thin air again via trade which I wouldn’t rule out similar to trading for Buchnevich and ROR.

 

[PJJJP]

Still don't like the trade. 2nd round picks are good for picking up those younger players who haven't quite panned out. Like buch for us, or Toews for the Avs or Bennet for the Panthers. Maybe teams will be fine with our 2026 2nd

 

[simon IC]

Hypothetically if there was a defenseman that was 28 or 29 and you’re able to sign him to a 7 year deal, that would still fall in line with when the team should be contending again and there shouldn’t be a substantial drop in production for most defensemen when compared to forwards at that age

Brett Pesce?

 

[Ranksu]

I just can’t envision DA doing this without something else in mind. My new theory is that the real dollars saved (DA strongly suggested that they didn’t do this for cap space) will be utilized in a trade of Krug with $$ retained.

Army interview between The lines I read front office wasnt willing to pay deadmoney for Hayes.

 

[Brian39]

I very much get the impression that this was a 'cut the budget' move first and foremost, which is more worrying to me than the value given up to accomplish that goal. We owed Hayed $5.25M real dollars over the next 2 years, with $1.25M coming in the form of signing bonuses paid today and next July 1st. I would be very surprised if we wouldn't have been able to get a team to take him for nothing with 50% retention (which would have been eating $2.625M real dollars spread over 2 seasons). He's making less than his cap hit, so he is the kind of contract that is easier on the payroll than the cap calculation.

I get that the amounts we discuss as rounding errors are still 7 figure real-dollar amounts that even rich owners still notice. But if we're trying that hard to trade out those type of dollar amounts, I think it is unlikely that we will turn around and eat bad short term contracts in order to maximize returns elsewhere.

I don't like paying a 2nd to rectify/shed a lost gamble, but I'm more concerned about what this type of move means about our ownership group's willingness to pay cash for futures assets.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I very much get the impression that this was a 'cut the budget' move first and foremost, which is more worrying to me than the value given up to accomplish that goal. We owed Hayed $5.25M real dollars over the next 2 years, with $1.25M coming in the form of signing bonuses paid today and next July 1st. I would be very surprised if we wouldn't have been able to get a team to take him for nothing with 50% retention (which would have been eating $2.625M real dollars spread over 2 seasons). He's making less than his cap hit, so he is the kind of contract that is easier on the payroll than the cap calculation.

I get that the amounts we discuss as rounding errors are still 7 figure real-dollar amounts that even rich owners still notice. But if we're trying that hard to trade out those type of dollar amounts, I think it is unlikely that we will turn around and eat bad short term contracts in order to maximize returns elsewhere.

I don't like paying a 2nd to rectify/shed a lost gamble, but I'm more concerned about what this type of move means about our ownership group's willingness to pay cash for futures assets.

Yep. I think it basically kills the idea of moving Krug or buying someone out. I think the only way a Krug deal happens is if it's like last year where we taking a big contract like Sanheim, so both sides think they are benefitting financially. I'll also be curious how much to the cap that we spend. If we have cap space that is essentially Hayes' contract or larger, then it just confirms that Army is on a budget below the cap.

A budget isn't necessarily bad, it's only bad that if we don't spend to the cap in years that we are actually attempting to compete. If ownership told Army he's under a tighter budget for the next 2 years before the re-whatever is done, I think that's acceptable.

 

[Louie the Blue]

I mean you can’t spend to the cap every year and have investors who know they’re lucky to break even prior to the POs without expecting some push back.

I’m fine with not being a cap team in the immediate future, and think it’s OK to avoid a buyout right now. Buying out Hayes or Krug would impact the team when it’s time to contend again and when ownership I would assume would be willing to spend to the cap.

 

[Brian39]

Yep. I think it basically kills the idea of moving Krug or buying someone out. I think the only way a Krug deal happens is if it's like last year where we taking a big contract like Sanheim, so both sides think they are benefitting financially. I'll also be curious how much to the cap that we spend. If we have cap space that is essentially Hayes' contract or larger, then it just confirms that Army is on a budget below the cap.

A budget isn't necessarily bad, it's only bad that if we don't spend to the cap in years that we are actually attempting to compete. If ownership told Army he's under a tighter budget for the next 2 years before the re-whatever is done, I think that's acceptable.

Largely agree, but the budget might be above the cap.

The salaries of the roster players currently projected as a $71.735M team cap hit on Capfriendly is set to make $81.9M real dollars this year. We could be in a situation where Army has a $90M NHL roster budget, spends all of that budget, but winds up falling well short of the $88M salary cap.

As you say, a budget isn't necessarily bad. My concern is less about 'there is a budget' and my informed guess that the budget is low enough that it will actively hamstring our ability to make other moves. Hopefully, I'm overreacting. I very well could be. But the fact that Hayes was the only player due a (modest) signing bonus this year and we paid to move him right before the bonus is due does create some smoke about the notion that ownership might be thinking more about pure balance sheets in the short term than they are about how spending that money can help long-term.

 

[stl76]

Largely agree, but the budget might be above the cap.

The salaries of the roster players currently projected as a $71.735M team cap hit on Capfriendly is set to make $81.9M real dollars this year. We could be in a situation where Army has a $90M NHL roster budget, spends all of that budget, but winds up falling well short of the $88M salary cap.

As you say, a budget isn't necessarily bad. My concern is less about 'there is a budget' and my informed guess that the budget is low enough that it will actively hamstring our ability to make other moves. Hopefully, I'm overreacting. I very well could be. But the fact that Hayes was the only player due a (modest) signing bonus this year and we paid to move him right before the bonus is due does create some smoke about the notion that ownership might be thinking more about pure balance sheets in the short term than they are about how spending that money can help long-term.

I don’t think you’re crazy by any means, in fact I think you hit on an important point about the signing bonus…but I do also think Army has a track record as a GM who tries to do right by his players and I think some of this trade was a favor to Hayes to keep him out of the press box/AHL.

Probably a mix of not wanting to pay the SB’s and wanting to give Hayes a good opportunity…just my 2 cents, personally I still f***ing hate the trade haha

 

[ort]

I don't understand this move at all. This is the kind of move you make if you're a contending team, which we very clearly are not.

Signing free agents with the cap space makes zero sense. What are they doing? We should be taking in bad contracts for draft picks, not the opposite.

If the Blues want to try to clutch to some level of mediocrity and not sell off everyone I guess I can understand the reasoning... but they need to do that while hanging onto every draft pick like a precious commodity, not giving them away for nothing...

 

[BleedBlue14]

I don’t think you’re crazy by any means, in fact I think you hit on an important point about the signing bonus…but I do also think Army has a track record as a GM who tries to do right by his players and I think some of this trade was a favor to Hayes to keep him out of the press box/AHL.

Probably a mix of not wanting to pay the SB’s and wanting to give Hayes a good opportunity…just my 2 cents, personally I still f***ing hate the trade haha

That’s kind of my feeling as well. It’s a very heavy price to pay to do that given I think you could’ve accomplished the same with a late pick if you ate half of the money.

I think there’s a little bit to Hayes being related to the Tkachuks and Keith still being a part of the organization. It was probably thought that our pool is now deep enough after the last two drafts to stomach the price of a 2nd even in our current state.

 

[GoldenSeal]

I don't understand this move at all. This is the kind of move you make if you're a contending team, which we very clearly are not.

Signing free agents with the cap space makes zero sense. What are they doing? We should be taking in bad contracts for draft picks, not the opposite.

If the Blues want to try to clutch to some level of mediocrity and not sell off everyone I guess I can understand the reasoning... but they need to do that while hanging onto every draft pick like a precious commodity, not giving them away for nothing...

I think Army sees this team, on paper, able to contend if they are a few minor moves made. We're not good enough to tank, but not good enough to make the playoffs which I think Army reads as 'borderline playoff team; we are contending".

One of the ways his moves make sense.

 

[Robb_K]

This is where I’m at with it too. I’m curious if there’s more to the story as well as while he sucks as a player now, I didn’t see the urgency to get rid of him if the cost was that high.

But like you said, it’s not our money and it does save legit money. I’ll be curious if anything else leaks out that’d make it make more sense but I doubt it.

Same for me. Adding a FA player at that salary when this team will still be a bubble Wild Card team, at best, while giving up a 2nd Rounder is tough to chew on. I'm hoping (against hope) that the "future considerations" coming back to The Blues in this trade is a conditional (albeit lesser) draft choice "3rd or 4th" depending upon Hayes' performance, or where The Blues finish in the 2024-2025 standings.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

“Future considerations “ is nothing. It’s definitely not a 3rd/4th, or that’s what the deal would have said,

 

[STL fan in MN]

“Future considerations “ is nothing. It’s definitely not a 3rd/4th, or that’s what the deal would have said,

Yep. If it was a conditional 3rd/4th, that’d be specified in the deal.

Maybe Dubas agreed to cover Army’s greens fee the next time the GMs gather in Florida or some other small favor but as for something benefitting the Blues, it’s unfortunately almost certainly nothing.

 

[Blueston]

i Feel much better about Hayes trade after todays moves. 2nd and Hayes for 3rd and Joseph and Faisal I like.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

i Feel much better about Hayes trade after todays moves. 2nd and Hayes for 3rd and Joseph and Faisal I like.

Cool! We got the last King of Iraq!!

 

[Blueston]

Cool! We got the last King of Iraq!!

Dang autocorrect!