View Single Post
12-18-2012, 11:15 PM
Ya Ma Goo!
bluemandan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by 3rdlineglory View Post
A guy like Gaborik or Nash sure would have come in handy against Quick. Scoring by committee is nice, but you need elite scorers to beat elite goalies. Also, it's not fair to use Tarasenko. He'll be making a lot if he turns out to be what he's been hyped to. Kreider and Stepan don't make a lot either.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't be nice.

I'm saying the Blues can't afford them.

I was only talking about the 2012-13 season. What Kreider, Stepan, and Tarasenko will make in the future is irrelevant. Also, I didn't use Tarasenko because, you are correct, it wouldn't be fair. He was one of the four forwards the Blues couldn't afford for the salaries of Gaborik, Nash, and Richards.

The fact is New York would have cut checks for more money for their top four forwards than St. Louis would have for their entire forwards corps this season if it wasn't for the lock-out. And that is a luxury that the Blues can't afford.

It is so shocking to me that some people just don't understand that not every team in the NHL has unlimited funds like the Maple Leafs or the Rangers. The Blues could never afford to bury Wade Redden in the minors. Heck, they couldn't afford to sign him to that contract in the first place.

Also, the Rangers are going with scoring by committee. That is why they added Richards to Gaborik. Because one elite forward isn't enough. Then they decided that Richards and Gaborik weren't enough and added Nash. The Ranger's committee is a step up from the Blues committee, but they still use multiple scorers to prevent the opposition from keying in on and shutting down one player.

As a franchise that could only afford one such player, and would have to sacrifice in other areas to do so, the Blues decided to spread the wealth around a bit instead of putting all of their eggs into one basket. Tying all your hopes to one players doesn't make sense when that player can get injured, go into a slump, etc.

In short, the Rangers are a have team, and the Blues are a have-not team. If the Blues had the finances the Rangers did they would add elite level forwards to their roster. Both teams have a balanced roster, as balanced rosters are better than top-heavy or otherwise unbalanced rosters. The extra money the Rangers can afford to spend allow them to have a balanced roster AND elite level forwards. This is something that the Blues won't be able to afford to do baring major changes to the financial structure of the league.

Simply put the Blues had to make a choice due to their limited finances: scoring by committee or single superstar upfront. Judging by the success that Nashville and Phoenix have had the past five years, and the lack of success Columbus and Atlanta had the past five seaons, it is pretty clear which way wins more games in the NHL. Gotta make the playoffs before you can win them.

Last edited by bluemandan: 12-18-2012 at 11:21 PM.
bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote