1 of 1- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline - Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Blues offseason
Well this should be interesting. Hitch's last season.
They would like to keep Brouwer and Backes. So Brian Elliott was traded to free up room for that. Hell of a gamble in my opinion...I don't like it. I'd have been much happier with Elliott and Brouwer or Backes....
We're saddled with Bowmeester, ShattenDueces may get shipped though. I'd prefer to never see either of them in a Blues jersey again. Bow is just done, but the sorry SOB has a no trade, so we either have to find a trade to a team he's cool with or we're screwed.
There are some seriously fine UFA's out there. Okposo, Stamkos, Ladd, Erikkson, McGinn. I don't know how the Blues can go after any of them if they commit 10 million a year to Brouwer and Backes and god only know what kind of raise Schwartz is going to take.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Blues offseason
Elliott asked for the trade and they accommodated him. Plus, they were going to lose him after next season when he became an unrestricted free agent. They traded him while they could still get something for him and while his value was at its highest.
Shattenkirk will likely be traded before the season begins. Apparently Boston, Detroit and Edmonton are all interested. Armstrong is just trying to get the best deal. Teams should get a little more desperate after the free agent period.
Not sure how the expansion draft thing works, but Bouwmeester will almost certainly be made available. Of course, that doesn't mean Vegas will be dumb enough to take him.
- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline
- Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Re: Blues offseason
Well they dished Elliott to free up room to make a move, and .... made no move. Bringing back Perron and his whopping 12 goals a season isn't impressive for the nearly 4M a year they paid to get it. Not when you could have picked up Staal or McGinn for the same money and had some serious threat going.
I figured Elliott was moved more because of that expansion draft, although him becoming a UFA that offseason would have made that point moot. We couldn't keep both goalies protected.
All said, I don't think you can say the Blues are better than they were in any area. There sure seemed like places where money could be spent without breaking the bank, but Army did nothing.
- •
Thread Starter- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Blues offseason
I don't believe they ever intended to make a move, I think the intent was to free up money to keep what they have.
I think their #1 priority was re-signing Backes, but Boston offered a ridiculous number of years. I can't blame him for leaving, and can't blame the Blues for not matching it.
They spent some of the money to re-sign Allen, and they're working to re-sign Schwartz. The nature of the current cap structure is you can have about 5-6 highly paid players. The Black Hawks have Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Crawford and Seabrook and then they have to unload players. The Blues have Tarasenko, Pietrangelo, Stastny, Bouwmeester and Steen. They want to retain Schwartz.
That said, I'm not buying the "new and improved" David Perron. But it is what it is.
- alz
- Larry Walker
Offline
- Registered: 9/23/2010
- Posts: 2,396
Re: Blues offseason
I don't know, Backes said they didn't match the money or the term, despite what Army said. Usually you hit one of the two, but St. Louis didn't match Boston on 6M AAV or 5 years.
- •
Thread Starter