Let em all walk.The most I’d offer Schwartz is 5x5. If he wants more, let him walk.
Who would you consider a legitimate LWI think if we acquire a legitimate top line LW to go with 90-57 it would take a lot of pressure of Schwartz, and we know that 17-10-25 is a very solid second line.
As far as Bozak, I’d bring him back if we either A.) trade Thomas or B.) miss out on other middle 6 options to put with Thomas/Kostin on our third line.
I don’t think Hoffman will return.
Who would you consider a legitimate LW
We all know we arent gonna get Landeskog or Hall. We would have to move serious money out.
Is there a significant chance that Kostin will out-produce Schwartz next season? How about Kyrou? I think the second is likely. Do the Blues have a realistic chance of acquiring a young forward breaking into the league who might outproduce Schwartz?
It wouldn't probably be a draft pick from this draft, but maybe a prospect that hasn't established himself yet.
I think a path that leads to that - identifying CORRECTLY young talent that ends up with top 6 production, even if its not a 'name' prospect that everyone already knows. If the Blues can make moves like that I think they can extend their window. You need good production from entry level contracts to keep a veteran core roster fully stocked under the salary cap. All these scenarios where the Blues trade Kostin, Kyrou, etc to acquire a veteran player on a UFA contract will simply lead to a top heavy roster with insufficient depth.
Its not as exciting to discuss, but the Blues really need their pro scouting to identify some homeruns, and for Armstrong to make the creative moves that will replace guys like Schwartz and Tarasenko with younger players that can produce enough.
Well, at least they have a 1st this year, but I think Armstrong would like to have added a couple more draft picks since the Blues don't have a 2nd or 3rd. I won't be surprised if Dunn is traded for a 2nd.Tarasenko is the big question mark. We've gone two seasons without him being in the equation. If he returns to form, he's like adding two or three guys. I think the focus is about to shift to drafting very soon.
Are the professional scouts and leadership capable of that? Most of our finds seem to be older. Recently we have acquired players at their apex or downswing of their careers. I am not particularly confident in our scouting staff identifying breakout potential players. And even if they can, because of the flat cap, those players are even more valued today then they were pre-pandemic.Is there a significant chance that Kostin will out-produce Schwartz next season? How about Kyrou? I think the second is likely. Do the Blues have a realistic chance of acquiring a young forward breaking into the league who might outproduce Schwartz?
It wouldn't probably be a draft pick from this draft, but maybe a prospect that hasn't established himself yet.
I think a path that leads to that - identifying CORRECTLY young talent that ends up with top 6 production, even if its not a 'name' prospect that everyone already knows. If the Blues can make moves like that I think they can extend their window. You need good production from entry level contracts to keep a veteran core roster fully stocked under the salary cap. All these scenarios where the Blues trade Kostin, Kyrou, etc to acquire a veteran player on a UFA contract will simply lead to a top heavy roster with insufficient depth.
Its not as exciting to discuss, but the Blues really need their pro scouting to identify some homeruns, and for Armstrong to make the creative moves that will replace guys like Schwartz and Tarasenko with younger players that can produce enough.
I don't think it is fair to the pro scouts to say that they mostly find older talent and might be incapable of finding younger talent. Sanford and Sunny were both young guys targeted by our pro scouting staff that played important roles in the Cup run. Having 2 cheaply acquired young guys contribute to a playoff run like those two did is a success of pro scouting.
It is fairly rare for teams to give up on 21-24 year olds who are quickly able to contribute to their new team. And the players who fit that description usually are well-touted guys with draft pedigree that cost a noticeable asset. You are correct that we haven't acquired guys fitting that bill in the last 2-3 years, but I also don't think that we were really in the market for them. Teams in the full swing of win-now mode can't really risk known quantities for unknown quantities, so you don't usually see them making those gambles.
I don't think it is an inability of pro scouting to ID talented young guys (whose teams are down on them), but rather that we weren't in that market because we didn't see ourselves as a team that could burn 50 regular season games on an unknown. My hope is that we explore that possibility this summer.
It's also worth noting that Schenn was just 25 when we acquired him and he promptly found another level as a Blue than he had demonstrated before. ROR and Faulk were 27. I think it is fair to say that they were squarely in the apex of their careers when acquired and not on the ledge of the downswing. We've had some strike outs from the pro scouting staff, but that same staff also hit a lot of doubles and triples on guys who brought 3+ years of quality contributions after joining the team.
I don't know that leadership (and possibly ownership) is capable/willing to shift focus towards youth at the expense of win-now mode. They might not be. But if they are, I am confident that the pro scouting staff can identify some good targets for that vision.
We were 4+ years removed from their drafts for both of them. If we are crediting that to amateur scouting then I think the question of whether our pro scouts can identify young talent is moot since we don't rely on them for guys who are in their early 20s.Are you sure it was pro scouting that identified Sanford and Sundqvist, and not just left over interest from amateur scouting. They might have been guy our amateur scouts targeted that we though could fall. They potentially got nabbed before we targeted them, so we stuck their name in a file as a potential trade target. I remmember in Schenn's case specifically Armstrong mentioned that they liked him since his draft year.
That’s a fair point.We were 4+ years removed from their drafts for both of them. If we are crediting that to amateur scouting then I think the question of whether our pro scouts can identify young talent is moot since we don't rely on them for guys who are in their early 20s.
Is it that compartmentalized? It makes sense that amateur and pro scouting have some common framework for their evaluations, under the ultimate leadership of one guy. I think we may talk about it here like two totally discrete entities when it probably has more overlap. In other words, I'm not sure the answer to your question really means anything.Are you sure it was pro scouting that identified Sanford and Sundqvist, and not just left over interest from amateur scouting. They might have been guy our amateur scouts targeted that we though could fall. They potentially got nabbed before we targeted them, so we stuck their name in a file as a potential trade target. I remmember in Schenn's case specifically Armstrong mentioned that they liked him since his draft year.
Man I remember when I thought Sundqvist wouldn't make the team and was probably not going to be claimed on waivers either. Boy was that wrong. Even after his first year in St Louis, there was nothing I could see to recommend him, but whoever scouted him sure knew what they were doing.That’s a fair point.
With regards to finding younger players, I do think Schenn was a relatively known quantity. Yes he blossomed, but then he wilted and blossomed again. The guy is certainly inconsistent. Nevertheless, it was a smart trade.
Sanford is a pretty dime a dozen player. I am not sure he is a feather in the cap of our staff. I would wager that any number of players from a fairly large pool could have replicated his playoff success, which was fairly limited albeit timely.
Sunny was a “ruby in the rough” find. I didn’t say diamond because he is still a bottom six player. He was much better than his initial play suggested. He was a good find.
So we have two wise additions to a roster. My question is does that inspire confidence? To me it’s not enough.
I think it is compartmentalized in the sense that one evaluates players from amateur leagues and one watches pro talent. I would have to think that our amateur scouts send along info to our pro scouts however.Is it that compartmentalized? It makes sense that amateur and pro scouting have some common framework for their evaluations, under the ultimate leadership of one guy. I think we may talk about it here like two totally discrete entities when it probably has more overlap. In other words, I'm not sure the answer to your question really means anything.
It was a joke.Who you going to replace him with
We were 4+ years removed from their drafts for both of them. If we are crediting that to amateur scouting then I think the question of whether our pro scouts can identify young talent is moot since we don't rely on them for guys who are in their early 20s.
Is it that compartmentalized? It makes sense that amateur and pro scouting have some common framework for their evaluations, under the ultimate leadership of one guy. I think we may talk about it here like two totally discrete entities when it probably has more overlap. In other words, I'm not sure the answer to your question really means anything.
...
I say this as broken record. We have 16.275mill.$ tight on Krug, Faulk and Scandella and we worry can we afford to keep Schwartz at 5-6mill.$.
My point is that the same leadership supervises both efforts. The head scouts answer to the same person. It’s not like the each have to invent their own wheel. It makes no sense to think that they use no common tools and techniques.I think it is compartmentalized in the sense that one evaluates players from amateur leagues and one watches pro talent. I would have to think that our amateur scouts send along info to our pro scouts however.
For me it absolutely does. I can't think of many teams around the league who have a stable of guys who they pulled from other teams when they were under 24. In this league, teams just don't give up on young guys all that often unless they have proven to have major flaws in their game.So we have two wise additions to a roster. My question is does that inspire confidence? To me it’s not enough.
I know and I hate myself for that, but I cant help when I observe our team I get so frustrated knowing how bad situation we are.
But, yeah, you got the "broken record" part right anyway...