Rebuild: Who To Keep?

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Robert Thomas is only 21 years old. He has shown great potential and already has the skill to be a slightly more offensive and slightly less defensive version of Bergeron. He just needs to grown into his man body and man strength.

I assume this is hyperbole? Thomas has great talent and immense potential, but Bergeron is HOFer. He scored 30+ at age 20 and has done it 5 times since. 4 Selkes. He’s the type of guy they build statues of. It’s not realistic to expect Thomas to be Bergeron-level player.

 

[MissouriMook]

Robert Thomas is only 21 years old. He has shown great potential and already has the skill to be a slightly more offensive and slightly less defensive version of Bergeron. He just needs to grown into his man body and man strength.

I don’t think it is unfair to point out that as a 3rd year player, regardless of his age, he needs to redefine his game a bit. He is predominantly a play maker, but he will never reach his potential in that regard until he becomes a more legitimate threat as a shooter. He has the tools to be a top line player, but I have yet to see the commitment to round out his game to become one. I don’t think this is an example of a system or coach holding him back, I just wonder if he has the drive to be a great player to match his skill set.

 

[BlueMed]

I assume this is hyperbole? Thomas has great talent and immense potential, but Bergeron is HOFer. He scored 30+ at age 20 and has done it 5 times since. 4 Selkes. He’s the type of guy they build statues of. It’s not realistic to expect Thomas to be Bergeron-level player.

Not a hyperbole. Thomas's skillset has been compared to Bergeron's many a times. You're attempting to compare career accomplishments, which really isn't fair seeing how Bergeron is literally 14 years older than Thomas.

 

[BlueMed]

I don’t think it is unfair to point out that as a 3rd year player, regardless of his age, he needs to redefine his game a bit. He is predominantly a play maker, but he will never reach his potential in that regard until he becomes a more legitimate threat as a shooter. He has the tools to be a top line player, but I have yet to see the commitment to round out his game to become one. I don’t think this is an example of a system or coach holding him back, I just wonder if he has the drive to be a great player to match his skill set.

How can we question Thomas' drive at this point given his injuries this season and his lack of playing time in the top 6? He is 21 years old...people tend to forget that Tarasenko came over at the age of 21, and Thomas has looked better than he was at the age of 19.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Not a hyperbole. Thomas's skillset has been compared to Bergeron's many a times. You're attempting to compare career accomplishments, which really isn't fair seeing how Bergeron is literally 14 years older than Thomas.

Bergeron isn’t Bergeron bc of his skill set anymore than ROR is ROR. I have no doubt that Thomas wants to be better than he is. And he will be. But wanting to improve isn’t same as being guy that wants to dominate every shift of every game through sheer will. If he wants to become that player, like Bergeron (or ROR) it will take much more from him than he has shown.

 

[The Note]

Thomas is certainly one of the guys I would hang on to in any rebuild/re-tool that happens. That being said, if he accomplishes 3/4 of what Bergeron has we're talking about one of the Blues' best draft picks in team history and one of the better forwards the team has had. I think he has another level to hit, but I don't think he will ever be one of the best ~10 centers in the league by any stretch.

 

[TurgPavs]

Always thought it was unfair to compare these young players to others accomplishments.
Berglund comes to mind. Compared to Forsberg when he was drafted, and the guy ended up being a really solid 3rd line center who was able to play up and down the line up with no issue.
However many fans would never get those early comparisons out of their head and Berglund and his 750+ games for the Blues was labeled a bust.

 

[Brian39]

You do know why "no team in the NHL was willing to take that contract for nothing," right? Hint: it has to do with the salary cap, and it's been true for 15 years and counting now - and it's going to be true for the next 15 years, too.


Tarasenko has trade value. Tarasenko does not have "high" [1st + top prospect + whatever else] value in the regular season, absent us taking a similar contract back. He might not have it in the offseason without the same condition. I don't know, I haven't sat and thought about it. But there is almost always a GM somewhere that thinks yeah, we can find some of that lost magic, we can find that 30-35 goal form he had before and will swing a deal banking on it. It's 2 years. If you think he can get you to a next level in those 2 years and maybe you make another move and you're on the precipice of a Cup, it's worth it.

Would it help if Tarasenko started proving he could be that 30-35 goal guy again? Sure, but if he did that would we be talking about trading him? Likely not. You don't trade the guys who are stellar for you, you trade the guys you don't want or you trade the guys who have the highest value on the market because you're rebuilding in some way. We're not in the latter camp, so if we're putting him out we're probably talking about being in the former.

Yes, of course I know why no team was willing to take his contract for nothing. And it is the exact same thing that demolishes Tarasenko's value. That is literally my exact point. In the flat cap reality, a $4.5M cap hit for 2 years (with $6.5M total real dollars owed) was too much of a commitment for any GM to think "yeah, we can find some of that lost magic." Gostisbehere had 4 straight 35+ point seasons and averaged a 51 point pace over that time frame. Then he had an injury-derailed 2019/20 where he had 12 points in 42 games that ultimately led to a knee surgery. All in all, he has 28 points in his last 77 games, projecting to still be a 30 point D man at his absolute floor. That isn't a terrible floor and he has the ceiling of a very top-end offensive D man in the right situation.

Tarasenko's contract carries about twice as much risk as Gostisbehere's, with a $7.5M cap hit for 2 more years and $15M more real dollars owed ($9.5M of that next season). There are very few teams who can take on that money because the vast majority of the league is going to be in cap trouble next year. Any rebuilding team has no interest in taking a chance on Tarasenko, because even if they find the old magic, he will hit UFA before they are ready to contend. Teams ready to contend now don't have the ability to take on that kind of salary for an unknown. And all of that is before you even consider that his full NTC means that he will immediately be able to say "here are the X teams I'm will to play for."

In the new NHL financial landscape where no one has cap space for the next 2+ years, you aren't going to see nearly as many teams willing to take on large contracts with the hope of finding old magic.

The Golden Knights couldn't pay anyone to take Fleury and they were reportedly offering a 2nd round pick. Gostisbehere went unclaimed on waivers. Tyler Johnson went unclaimed on waivers. You're not getting more than a 2nd for a $7.5M player coming off major injury issues unless/until he demonstrates that he can play like his old self.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I've been encouraged by Vlad's last few games, but if you'd put him on waivers 3 weeks ago I think its debatable whether he'd have been claimed. Actually, I doubt he would have been.

 

[Meatball]

I've been encouraged by Vlad's last few games, but if you'd put him on waivers 3 weeks ago I think its debatable whether he'd have been claimed. Actually, I doubt he would have been.

If I'm the GM of any other team in the league, and I just received news that Vladimir Tarasenko just hit waivers, and it's my turn...I'M ALL OVER IT!

Do you honestly think teams out there wouldn't pick him up (for free, mind you) and take a low-risk gamble on him returning to form?

It'd so very bluesy to watch him get picked up on waivers by some other team and then turn into a consistent 40-goal player again with them.

Luckily we don't have to have that conversation, and there's still the chance he bounces back with us.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

If I'm the GM of any other team in the league, and I just received news that Vladimir Tarasenko just hit waivers, and it's my turn...I'M ALL OVER IT!

Do you honestly think teams out there wouldn't pick him up (for free, mind you) and take a low-risk gamble on him returning to form?

It'd so very bluesy to watch him get picked up on waivers by some other team and then turn into a consistent 40-goal player again with them.

Luckily we don't have to have that conversation, and there's still the chance he bounces back with us.

How many teams even have cap space for him?

 

[Brian39]

If I'm the GM of any other team in the league, and I just received news that Vladimir Tarasenko just hit waivers, and it's my turn...I'M ALL OVER IT!

Do you honestly think teams out there wouldn't pick him up (for free, mind you) and take a low-risk gamble on him returning to form?

It'd so very bluesy to watch him get picked up on waivers by some other team and then turn into a consistent 40-goal player again with them.

Luckily we don't have to have that conversation, and there's still the chance he bounces back with us.

Less than half the league currently has the cap space to put a claim in on Tarasenko this season.

Nashville could claim him, but it would make their cap situation next season very tight. Haula, Granlund, Saros, and Tolvanen are all do decent contracts and they would have about $10M in space for those raises plus 4 more roster spots if they picked up Tarasenko. So the cost of gambling on Tarasenko is losing 2 of those guys. There is also the very real question of whether Nashville is a contender over the remainder of Tarasenko's 2 year contract. I think the answer to that is a resounding no.

Philly would have about $4M in space if they claimed Tarasenko. They don't have a goalie under contract for next season and Sanheim will get at least $3.25M (his QO). The cost of picking up Tarasenko would be losing Sanheim + moving another guy or moving two other guys.

Minnesota would have about $14M to fill 9 roster spots after picking up Tarasenko, but these are their notable free agents: Kaprisov (with arbitration rights and on pace for 70 points), Bonino, Fiala, Johansson, Bjugstad, Eriksson Ek, and Cole. Adding Tarasenko means losing 2 of those guys that they wouldn't otherwise lose.

Calgary would have about $7.5M to fill 10 roster spots. They would either have to move a guy or fill all 10 spots with league minimum players. I certainly don't think adding Tarasenko makes them a contender.

I could go on and on, but my point is that in a flat cap reality, there is no "getting a guy for free" when you look at a big contract on waivers because cap space is going to be the single most valuable asset around the league for the next 2 years. Every GM in the league had a 3 year plan based around the assumption that the cap would grow at least a little. Prior to COVID, the "worst case scenario" projections were $1.5M a year in cap growth and the league was publicly talking about expecting a jump somewhere between $2.5M and $6.5M. The large majority of medium-to-large contracts on the books for 2022 were on the books before the pandemic hit and created a flat cap. This summer (and more importantly, next summer) are going to see significantly bigger cap crunches than the past offseason. For 80-90% of the league, picking up a $7.5M AAV player on waivers means losing at least 2 guys who are in your medium-to-long term plans. The remaining 10-20% of the league is almost fully comprised of teams who are in full-rebuild and not looking to win more games next season.

I'm hesitant to say that Tarasenko would have cleared waivers, but I wouldn't have put money on it. Getting a $7.5M AAV player on waivers is not getting them for free. With a flat cap for at least another summer, giving up $7.5M in cap space is a massively valuable lost asset.

 

[Stealth JD]

a team claiming a $7.5M/year Tarasenko could do so by simply cutting their own $4M-$5M anchors, and assigning them to the AHL. Tarasenko would get claimed...teams would make room if they think he's right. (which is a different conversation)

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

a team claiming a $7.5M/year Tarasenko could do so by simply cutting their own $4M-$5M anchors, and assigning them to the AHL. Tarasenko would get claimed...teams would make room if they think he's right. (which is a different conversation)

Doesn’t work that way. Can only bury about $1mm per player. Rest counts toward cap even if in AHL.

 

[Stealth JD]

Doesn’t work that way. Can only bury about $1mm per player. Rest counts toward cap even if in AHL.

yeah...they'd have to give away a useful guy that would likely be claimed in order for it to work. An "anchor" probably wouldn't cut it.

 

[Meatball]

Less than half the league currently has the cap space to put a claim in on Tarasenko this season.

Nashville could claim him, but it would make their cap situation next season very tight. Haula, Granlund, Saros, and Tolvanen are all do decent contracts and they would have about $10M in space for those raises plus 4 more roster spots if they picked up Tarasenko. So the cost of gambling on Tarasenko is losing 2 of those guys. There is also the very real question of whether Nashville is a contender over the remainder of Tarasenko's 2 year contract. I think the answer to that is a resounding no.

Philly would have about $4M in space if they claimed Tarasenko. They don't have a goalie under contract for next season and Sanheim will get at least $3.25M (his QO). The cost of picking up Tarasenko would be losing Sanheim + moving another guy or moving two other guys.

Minnesota would have about $14M to fill 9 roster spots after picking up Tarasenko, but these are their notable free agents: Kaprisov (with arbitration rights and on pace for 70 points), Bonino, Fiala, Johansson, Bjugstad, Eriksson Ek, and Cole. Adding Tarasenko means losing 2 of those guys that they wouldn't otherwise lose.

Calgary would have about $7.5M to fill 10 roster spots. They would either have to move a guy or fill all 10 spots with league minimum players. I certainly don't think adding Tarasenko makes them a contender.

I could go on and on, but my point is that in a flat cap reality, there is no "getting a guy for free" when you look at a big contract on waivers because cap space is going to be the single most valuable asset around the league for the next 2 years. Every GM in the league had a 3 year plan based around the assumption that the cap would grow at least a little. Prior to COVID, the "worst case scenario" projections were $1.5M a year in cap growth and the league was publicly talking about expecting a jump somewhere between $2.5M and $6.5M. The large majority of medium-to-large contracts on the books for 2022 were on the books before the pandemic hit and created a flat cap. This summer (and more importantly, next summer) are going to see significantly bigger cap crunches than the past offseason. For 80-90% of the league, picking up a $7.5M AAV player on waivers means losing at least 2 guys who are in your medium-to-long term plans. The remaining 10-20% of the league is almost fully comprised of teams who are in full-rebuild and not looking to win more games next season.

I'm hesitant to say that Tarasenko would have cleared waivers, but I wouldn't have put money on it. Getting a $7.5M AAV player on waivers is not getting them for free. With a flat cap for at least another summer, giving up $7.5M in cap space is a massively valuable lost asset.

Whatever.

Teams will find a way to MAKE room for players like Tarasenko IF he were to go to waivers.

 

[TruBlu]

There's no way I'd put Tarasenko on waivers, but a player is always available for the right price. We have a need on the back end and, more importantly, a phase in to a younger group.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Whatever.

Teams will find a way to MAKE room for players like Tarasenko IF he were to go to waivers.

It's a moot point, because Tarasenko is not going to waivers - and if he is, it's because he's that bad at the time and no one else is picking up his contract either.

How can we question Thomas' drive at this point given his injuries this season and his lack of playing time in the top 6? He is 21 years old...people tend to forget that Tarasenko came over at the age of 21, and Thomas has looked better than he was at the age of 19.

Is this "Thomas looked better than Thomas was at age 19" - which ... I'd hope was the case with any player - or "Thomas looked better than Tarasenko when both were age 19" which makes zero sense because we have no idea how Tarasenko would have looked at age 19 (he was in the KHL) and making a useful comparison from the KHL to the NHL is a bit like estimating how competitive you'd be in rowing by going to the local gym and hitting the machine there for 500 meters all-out.