View Single Post
Old
06-24-2012, 11:18 PM
  #123
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Far more important than losing something like D'Agostini and a 3d or whatever (and I have no problem losing these assets) is the opportunity cost of having all that payroll accounted for an essentially unmovable asset. As nice a job as Armstrong and Hitchcock have done, every GM and head coach in the NHL is capable of making a mistake and has made mistakes in judgment. Being the best means you get it right most of the time, not all of the time. They obviously haven't made such a trade but honestly it's two huge things for me. First and foremost, Bouwmeester is simply the wrong player. I'd honestly rather they get Kuba (who I obviously don't want either) because at least he'd be a bridge at most. What's the hope with Bouwmeester, that in two summers he'd take a huge paycut? So what. He's still the wrong guy! A team like the LA Kings would go through him like butter. Once the guy is the wrong guy, it really doesn't matter what the price is. (see Colaiacovo, Carlo)

But considering that the price is also that the Blues would be completely hamstrung in their ability to manuever in their budget for two full years (that's a long freaking time at such a critical juncture of the franchise's growth), it's just a horrendous idea. Horrendous. It's so bad that I can't believe some Blues fans are talking themselves into it just because the focus is so heavily on finding a defenseman.

Really, giving up spare, minor assets to get Bouwmeester is such a fringe part of the consideration after those two big problems that it's more like icing on top of a bad idea. The Blues have had this need for two offseasons now and they've been very patient looking for the right moment to address the issue. If they have to ride things out a little longer they still have plenty of time. The 2013 trade deadline is many months away.

Even if he cost 3M a year he's the wrong guy. The wrong guy and completely locking up the budget into immobility? Terrible, terrible idea.
+1! THIS is it in a nutshell. Strangling contract-lost opportunity (salary can't be used to put towards team needs) doesn't solve problem of needing big, tough crease-clearer, and player who can replace Pietrangelo in a pinch.

Suter fills that role, Bouwmeester doesn't. Yandle is closer, but really doesn't fill it well.

Truly, there are two different aspects of the problem. They need to have the best defence on the ice for the most minutes per game.

That issue was handled well when The Blues had both MacInnis and Pronger, by playing them on SEPARATE shifts, to make sure that they had a dominant, take-charge defenceman on the ice as much as possible (90% of each game). The two "anchor" d-men were only on the ice together o the power play, or on key shifts near the end of games or periods.

IF Suter IS actually signed by The Blues, I would rather have him anchor the 2nd defensive shift, and handles the same way as Pronger/MacInnis. THAT way, The Blues would always have a solid all-star defenceman on the ice for the great majority of each game.

That would mean that Cole would STILL be counted upon to upgrade his game significantly (through experience) to play alongside Pietrangelo-OR Pietrangelo is moved to the left side and the defensive pairs are shaken up. But there is STILL a problem with the pairings. But, I wouldn't want to "waste" having both Pietrangelo AND Suter on the same pairing, and move to a weaker pairing for the 2nd shift.

If Pietrangelo IS moved to the left side:

Pietrangelo-Polak?

Suter-Shattenkirk

Cole/Russell-Jackman?

I see that moving Pietrangelo to the left side doesn't help the problem of who becomes his shiftmate. Suter would be the only other d-man who could play on the first shift. It would be a shame to have a big fall-off from the first to 2nd shift (as the top 2 shifts should make up a big % of total minutes.

So, instead, we give 24 min. each to Suter-Pietrangelo (including their special teams' minutes), then do we have Jackman/Cole-Shattenkirk on the 2nd shift, with Cole eating minutes that Jackman can no longer handle strongly? Jackman averages 14 min. per game(including PK), Shattenkirk 20 min. (including PP). Then, on the 3rd shift, Russell averages 13 min (including 2nd PP shift time), Cole gets some min. on 3rd shift. And, between 2nd and 3rd, he averages 10 min. and Polak averages 15 min. (including some PK time).

There should be a total of 120 minutes for defenceman (2 -for 60 playing minutes).

Of course, this assumes no injuries. The beauty of having 7 regular d-men is that the 7th man gets almost as many minutes as the 6th, alternating some with the 6th, and both picking up extra minutes filling in for injured players.

Pietrangelo

Robb_K is offline