HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

LH Defenseman

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2012, 08:03 PM
  #101
BleedBlue42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...e=summary&pg=2

These are the top defensemen we could target. Obviously, we are focusing on only the ones with positive +/-'s. Also, don't even bother going to the top 30 NHL defensemen. We are NOT getting any of those. I wish though! I think Paul Martin would be someone we could trade for. He is not a stud by any means, but he can play a lot of situations.

BleedBlue42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:03 PM
  #102
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
I've watched Garrison play before paired with Campbell. I wouldn't be making blind assumptions about the guy if I was unfamiliar with his play. I have seen some strong points from him, a good solid shot from the point that would pair well with Pietrangelo and has skills that work good on the PK but at 2 mil plus he needs to offer more than ripping off shots from the top and penalty kill, he lacks toughness.

That being sad the Blues have no confrontational defenseman without Jackman and realistically you can't expect Garrison to fill that role as passive as he is. With nobody to protect the crease the larger teams will continue to run over the Blues. While Cole and Polak are physical in terms of play you rarely see them smashing larger forwards in the back or face-washing mouthy opponents.

I could see getting Garrison to replace Colaiacovo and Huskins but he doesn't have the steel to replace Jackman's role.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:04 PM
  #103
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by h22prelude93 View Post
Any interest in Jordan Leopold? Word is he could be shopped soon by Buffalo.
Leopold=Colaiacovo

I'd rather bring Cola back than spend 3 mil plus a trade chip on Jordan Leopold.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:09 PM
  #104
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,927
vCash: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredBrathwaite View Post
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...e=summary&pg=2

These are the top defensemen we could target. Obviously, we are focusing on only the ones with positive +/-'s. Also, don't even bother going to the top 30 NHL defensemen. We are NOT getting any of those. I wish though! I think Paul Martin would be someone we could trade for. He is not a stud by any means, but he can play a lot of situations.
The way of determining who to target was pretty funny, but when you said Paul Martin, I almost fell out of my chair.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:12 PM
  #105
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,927
vCash: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
Leopold=Colaiacovo

I'd rather bring Cola back than spend 3 mil plus a trade chip on Jordan Leopold.
Except Leopold is durable, blocks shots, and can play on the penalty kill, just to name 3 differences.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:14 PM
  #106
BleedBlue42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
The way of determining who to target was pretty funny, but when you said Paul Martin, I almost fell out of my chair.
Haha why? It makes a lot of sense. Some people on this thread are calling for a good 2 way defensemen, which I don't have a problem with us getting, so I considered a defensemen with good offensive ability one who gets at least 25 points while a defensemen who plays sound defense usually has a pretty high +/-. There is no way we are getting a top 30 defensemen in points.

What is your way of narrowing down some target defensemen?

BleedBlue42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:20 PM
  #107
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,927
vCash: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredBrathwaite View Post
Haha why? It makes a lot of sense. Some people on this thread are calling for a good 2 way defensemen, which I don't have a problem with us getting, so I considered a defensemen with good offensive ability one who gets at least 25 points while a defensemen who plays sound defense usually has a pretty high +/-. There is no way we are getting a top 30 defensemen in points.

What is your way of narrowing down some target defensemen?
There is a very limited amount of FA targets that would work, and few players that could realistically be traded.

Whoever we get has to be an upgrade over Jackman, otherwise we just resign him.

It isn't a big list of targets, so it's not like we have to narrow it down. Besides most of the players on your "list" wouldn't be available and many more outside of that list would work just fine.

BTW, you are the first Blues fan that I have seen that actually wants Martin. I hope to god you don't go to the Penguins about it either because none of us want to go over that again.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:24 PM
  #108
BleedBlue42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
There is a very limited amount of FA targets that would work, and few players that could realistically be traded.

Whoever we get has to be an upgrade over Jackman, otherwise we just resign him.

It isn't a big list of targets, so it's not like we have to narrow it down. Besides most of the players on your "list" wouldn't be available and many more outside of that list would work just fine.

BTW, you are the first Blues fan that I have seen that actually wants Martin. I hope to god you don't go to the Penguins about it either because none of us want to go over that again.
My list wasn't a concrete set in stone list. It was just to give some people of an idea of who the blues might want to get. Hell, there are some pretty good guys on the 3rd page with less than 25 points that I'd get like Seidenberg or Tyler Myers, but I think the only 2 good free agent defensemen worth getting are Suter and Garrison, and there are teams out there that are way more financially sound than we are going after them, so I doubt we can get either.

Honestly, we don't need an elite 2 way defensemen. I will take a LHD with at least 20 points and a good positive plus minus. It's not like we can get an all star defensemen anyways. Teams won't be giving those away by any means.

Also, so what if I am the first Blues fan that actually wants Martin? 27 points last year with 5 consecutive years of a positive plus minus. The times I have seen him, he was solid. Instead of rudely laughing at other people's suggestions, why don't you propose a D we should get? Grow up.


Last edited by BleedBlue42: 06-09-2012 at 08:33 PM.
BleedBlue42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:34 PM
  #109
Randall Ritchey
HockeyBuzz Blues
 
Randall Ritchey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,716
vCash: 500
What about Henrik Tallinder? Played very well when paired with Tyler Myers. Played very well when paired with Larsson. No reason to believe he wouldn't play very well when paired with a defensemen better than both of the two previous listed?

Randall Ritchey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:36 PM
  #110
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
I've watched Garrison play before paired with Campbell. I wouldn't be making blind assumptions about the guy if I was unfamiliar with his play. I have seen some strong points from him, a good solid shot from the point that would pair well with Pietrangelo and has skills that work good on the PK but at 2 mil plus he needs to offer more than ripping off shots from the top and penalty kill, he lacks toughness.

That being sad the Blues have no confrontational defenseman without Jackman and realistically you can't expect Garrison to fill that role as passive as he is. With nobody to protect the crease the larger teams will continue to run over the Blues. While Cole and Polak are physical in terms of play you rarely see them smashing larger forwards in the back or face-washing mouthy opponents.

I could see getting Garrison to replace Colaiacovo and Huskins but he doesn't have the steel to replace Jackman's role.
I should have made more clear I didn't think you had made any specific comparisons (e.g., you said nothing about Leino but I brought him up). I was more using the general "but maybe Garrison's not the real deal and signing him would thus be a mistake" idea behind your post (i.e. "herbal supplement").

I have to be honest though, the Jason Garrison I've watched is different than the one you describe. Garrison has 263 hits the last 150 games over two seasons. By comparison, Barret Jackman has 184 hits in his last 141 games over two seasons. This totally undercuts your point about Garrison being a passive player who can't fill Jackman's role. Garrison also blocks lots of shots. He is bigger than Jackman, more physical than Jackman, is every bit as good if not more strong a positional defenseman as Jackman, and has night and day superior offensive capacity over Jackman. It is a major upgrade.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:38 PM
  #111
BleedBlue42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Ritchey View Post
What about Henrik Tallinder? Played very well when paired with Tyler Myers. Played very well when paired with Larsson. No reason to believe he wouldn't play very well when paired with a defensemen better than both of the two previous listed?
Don't bother throwing individual defensemen's names out there. Some people on this forum think it's okay to laugh at other people's suggestions while not even being capable of coming up with their own suggestions.

BleedBlue42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:42 PM
  #112
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
The way of determining who to target was pretty funny, but when you said Paul Martin, I almost fell out of my chair.
Paul Martin. Oh sweet Christ.

I rest my case.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:42 PM
  #113
Randall Ritchey
HockeyBuzz Blues
 
Randall Ritchey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredBrathwaite View Post
Don't bother throwing individual defensemen's names out there. Some people on this forum think it's okay to laugh at other people's suggestions while not even being capable of coming up with their own suggestions.
You've just got to learn to let it roll of your shoulders here. Lots of people will talk you down, but you'll learn to let it go eventually. You just have too.

I've posted here for five years and I've learned to just let it all go. No point in getting mad when people talk you down. Tough skin is a must.

Randall Ritchey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:45 PM
  #114
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,927
vCash: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredBrathwaite View Post
My list wasn't a concrete set in stone list. It was just to give some people of an idea of who the blues might want to get. Hell, there are some pretty good guys on the 3rd page with less than 25 points that I'd get like Seidenberg or Tyler Myers, but I think the only 2 good free agent defensemen worth getting are Suter and Garrison, and there are teams out there that are way more financially sound than we are going after them, so I doubt we can get either.

Honestly, we don't need an elite 2 way defensemen. I will take a LHD with at least 20 points and a good positive plus minus. It's not like we can get an all star defensemen anyways. Teams won't be giving those away by any means.

Also, so what if I am the first Blues fan that actually wants Martin? 27 points last year with 5 consecutive years of a positive plus minus. The times I have seen him, he was solid. Instead of rudely laughing at other people's suggestions, why don't you propose a D we should get? Grow up.
I have dude, maybe read my posts and you'll see. As you've told P9, you do have the comprehension skills.

Don't get hung up on stats so much either.

Of the UFA dmen that we could target.

Tier 1: Suter and Garrison

Tier 2: Stuart and Jackman, maybe Allen

I'd prefer if we signed one of the first 4, in that order, and if we can't get them test the trade market.

The trade market is harder to determine who is available, so a lot harder to predict, but Leopold is one of the players that I'd like to target. The only problem is a lot of these moves could be made at the draft before we know anything about the free agents.

A lot depends on what management wants to do with Cole. If he is paired with Pietrangelo, then we need a more defensive oriented partner for Shattenkirk. If Cole is paired with Shattenkirk, then style of play is less of a concern.

We need at a minimum someone who is good in the defensive end and in the transition game.

And that is how you narrow your list, by needs and criteria, not basic stats during one season.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 08:49 PM
  #115
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
This totally undercuts your point about Garrison being a passive player who can't fill Jackman's role. Garrison also blocks lots of shots. He is bigger than Jackman, more physical than Jackman, is every bit as good if not more strong a positional defenseman as Jackman, and has night and day superior offensive capacity over Jackman. It is a major upgrade.
I didn't say he couldn't body check I said he wasn't confrontational which is something the Blues seriously lack. He has had ONE scrap at the pro-level and he does steer away from confrontation often. He isn't going to be the kind to stick up for a teammate like Jackman does, protect his goalie with dirty back shots, hand out a face wash or get mouthy with an opponent. That's why I used the word confrontational instead of physical.

Larger teams aren't going to take the Blues back end serious if they don't engage in scrums in front of the crease. Size isn't everything with intimidation and agitating. Hal Gill is huge and physical but most would agree the smaller Derek Dorsett is more intimidating and confrontational.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:00 PM
  #116
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
I didn't say he couldn't body check I said he wasn't confrontational which is something the Blues seriously lack. He has had ONE scrap at the pro-level and he does steer away from confrontation often. He isn't going to be the kind to stick up for a teammate like Jackman does, protect his goalie with dirty back shots, hand out a face wash or get mouthy with an opponent. That's why I used the word confrontational instead of physical.

Larger teams aren't going to take the Blues back end serious if they don't engage in scrums in front of the crease. Size isn't everything with intimidation and agitating. Hal Gill is huge and physical but most would agree the smaller Derek Dorsett is more intimidating and confrontational.
Wait, Garrison might be an herbal supplment because he won't have as many fighting majors as Jackman? (who by the way rarely ever fights) Other teams' confidence will inflate because it's Garrison back there handling more minutes, tougher competition than Jackman was handling, but doesn't give as many scrum facewashes? Come on. We lost to LA because there wasn't enough post-whistle scrum facewashing that would have made them respect the Blues more and back off? Really?

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:01 PM
  #117
BleedBlue42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
I have dude, maybe read my posts and you'll see. As you've told P9, you do have the comprehension skills.

Don't get hung up on stats so much either.

Of the UFA dmen that we could target.

Tier 1: Suter and Garrison

Tier 2: Stuart and Jackman, maybe Allen

I'd prefer if we signed one of the first 4, in that order, and if we can't get them test the trade market.

The trade market is harder to determine who is available, so a lot harder to predict, but Leopold is one of the players that I'd like to target. The only problem is a lot of these moves could be made at the draft before we know anything about the free agents.

A lot depends on what management wants to do with Cole. If he is paired with Pietrangelo, then we need a more defensive oriented partner for Shattenkirk. If Cole is paired with Shattenkirk, then style of play is less of a concern.

We need at a minimum someone who is good in the defensive end and in the transition game.

And that is how you narrow your list, by needs and criteria, not basic stats during one season.
I looked at Martin's stats from his entire career. Hence: 5 years in a row of positive plus minus. The list itself didn't determine who we should get. It just helps you a find a direction. That's all I was saying.

1. We are not getting Suter or Garrison. Period. Too many financially sound teams out there that are going to outbid us, and Garrison has reported that he wants to stay in Florida.

2. Stuart has reported that he wants to spend more time with his family on the west coast. San Jose reporters have reported that he is likely to go there.

3. Bryan Allen has only reached the 20 point mark once in his career. "Man, only if you went on Carolina's boards and saw what they said about him." Sound familiar?

I'm not going to stoop low enough to laugh at what you posted because that really has no place on these forums.

BleedBlue42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:03 PM
  #118
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Except Leopold is durable, blocks shots, and can play on the penalty kill, just to name 3 differences.

Durable I'll give you.
Shot blocking I accept; though Colaiacovo can at least throw a hit.

The PK aspect I won't.
Leopold may get time on the PK; but he sucks at it. The guy is an offensive D man with poor positioning and is completely ineffective in the crease.
He is no more effective on the PK than Colaiacovo has been for us; and most think it's a crime of some kind to have Cola on the PK.

I stand by what I said; Leopold and Cola are similarly talented defensemen and given a choice between the two I'd take Cola and I wouldn't think twice about it.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:05 PM
  #119
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
We can't get Suter or Garrison. They're pretty girls and everybody's obviously more handsome than us. It's so ludicrous that a pretty girl would even consider us that we should angrily denounce any of our friends who suggest us talking to them. We should therefore not try. There's this fat chick over in the corner who might do us. Her name is Paula Martin.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:14 PM
  #120
CarvinSigX
Meh
 
CarvinSigX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Ill Side
Country: United States
Posts: 8,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
We can't get Suter or Garrison. They're pretty girls and everybody's obviously more handsome than us. It's so ludicrous that a pretty girl would even consider us that we should angrily denounce any of our friends who suggest us talking to them. We should therefore not try. There's this fat chick over in the corner who might do us. Her name is Paula Martin.
Nah...I already have a fat chick I can take home. I call her "wife" or something along those lines.

Seriously though, if we can't get Suter or Garrison, we may as well stand pact and roll with Cole-Jackman-Russell on the left side. Army will take his time and find the right trade eventually.

CarvinSigX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:14 PM
  #121
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,927
vCash: 857
Watch Martin play. Anyone would have a good +/- playing behind Crosby and Malkin.

You have failed to produce anything saying that Garrison is staying in Florida. The link you provided was something I already read, and no where in it did it indicate that they are close to agreeing.

I also don't feel like going over the financial side again, as I've done it before you were here, but try adding the salaries of Jackman, Colaiacovo, and Arnott together, now what do you get, plenty of money to spend.

We have the money to sign those players. No matter how many times you want to say we don't, we do.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:19 PM
  #122
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Wait, Garrison might be an herbal supplment because he won't have as many fighting majors as Jackman? (who by the way rarely ever fights) Other teams' confidence will inflate because it's Garrison back there handling more minutes, tougher competition than Jackman was handling, but doesn't give as many scrum facewashes? Come on. We lost to LA because there wasn't enough post-whistle scrum facewashing that would have made them respect the Blues more and back off? Really?
No I referred to Garrison as a supplement because he doesn't have an established level of play in the NHL not trying to offend you. He has only had two full seasons at the pro-level. One fight at the NHL level compared to Jackman's 54 says a lot about willingness to stand up for teammates and confrontation. We lost to LA because they would pile in front of the goal and the confrontational play wasn't there to protect the goal and make them pay the price for being there. Did Garrison win a Calder or wear an A for a pro-team yet? I'm not saying Garrison is terrible or that he wouldn't work out but he isn't confrontational enough to take over Jackman's role nor does he have the professional experience. Jackman has a proven track record you don't have to guess what you are going to get with him in terms of gritty play.

We all watch the same NHL as you do. Some of us just have a different point of view. That's all.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:20 PM
  #123
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,927
vCash: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarvinSigX View Post
Nah...I already have a fat chick I can take home. I call her "wife" or something along those lines.

Seriously though, if we can't get Suter or Garrison, we may as well stand pact and roll with Cole-Jackman-Russell on the left side. Army will take his time and find the right trade eventually.
I hope you "wife" doesn't see what you wrote.

I agree. People seem to of totally cut ties with Jackman, which is ridiculous. It is either get someone better than Jackman or resign Jackman, which is why the list of targets is a small one.

If we start with Jackman, Cole, and Russell, we will be just fine during the season. If we realize that the combination needs upgrading for the playoffs, we can make a deal at the trade deadline.

We have a team that will succeed in the regular season, and we have 2 chances to upgrade for the post-season. If Cole continues to develop with the added experience, along with Shattenkirk who had a rough playoffs, we will be fine with what we have.

Then we can take the money that Arnott and Colaiacovo got and get a 3rd line center or move Berglund for an upgrade.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:23 PM
  #124
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
We can't get Suter or Garrison. They're pretty girls and everybody's obviously more handsome than us. It's so ludicrous that a pretty girl would even consider us that we should angrily denounce any of our friends who suggest us talking to them. We should therefore not try. There's this fat chick over in the corner who might do us. Her name is Paula Martin.
No we are handsome enough but when you have Brad Pitt in the bar (Detroit Red Wings) you end up going home with Tina Fey instead of Angelina Jolie.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:34 PM
  #125
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21,927
vCash: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
No we are handsome enough but when you have Brad Pitt in the bar (Detroit Red Wings) you end up going home with Tina Fey instead of Angelina Jolie.
I was thinking we can just get the leftovers instead. Jennifer Aniston would get the job done.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.