On that Hayes topic, the same reason I'm whatever about Hayes' salary on L4 is also why I flat out don't understand why the Blues paid a 2nd to get out of his deal. Granted they recovered some of that value by getting a 3rd for taking Joseph (who I would have also gone after, but I suppose they don't really need at this point), but why are the St. Louis Blues of all teams wasting assets to get rid of bad deals?
They've finished with 92 and 81 points in the last 2 years, definitely don't look like a contender and maybe don't even look like a playoff team. They're not particularly young, not particularly good and don't really have a prospect pool that suggests they'll be good in the near term. Not exactly sure why that team is looking at their roster and thinking "we need to pay to get out of Hayes' $3.8 million deal".
Just everything about them is mediocre. Finished 16th in the NHL last year, have the 14th ranked prospect pool according to Wheeler and have the 18th youngest team.
It's a good point and a little baffling from an outsider's perspective who has no care for how they finish. Internally, I imagine they are saying "we have Kyrou, we have Thomas, we have Neighbours who are all young in-their-prime guys. We have a good supporting cast with Saad, Schenn, and we just invested a lot of money in Buchnevich...yeah, we need to continue to built a team that will compete".
They dumped Hayes and brought in Joseph, Holloway, and Broberg. It's a roster that lacks a high-end talent as the franchise guy, but it's still a solid roster with good depth. Similar to say, Utah and Seattle. So if everyone performs, they could be in the playoffs. It's the same as Seattle, the same as Utah, and the same as us.
I don't see what other option they really have. Thomas and Kyrou are their only major assets and they are just young enough where you'd hate to trade them away. You're not likely getting the replacement player nor will the pick be high enough to justify it IMHO. They're in a tough spot organization-wise.
