Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Stewart doesn't seem to be fitting in on the Blues very well with 30 pts in 79 GP last year. Wouldn't mind seeing the Canucks roll the dice on him, could use a big natural RW on our 2nd or 3rd line. So what's he worth?
Let's forget the back to back 28 goal yrs and focus on the one bad yr he's had... Let's make this short, you want him for scraps and the blues want a solid return or will keep him to see if he rebounds. I just saves a lot of bickering between fan bases, you can thank me later.
Let's forget the back to back 28 goal yrs and focus on the one bad yr he's had... Let's make this short, you want him for scraps and the blues want a solid return or will keep him to see if he rebounds. I just saves a lot of bickering between fan bases, you can thank me later.
The bickering is still gonna happen..
What would the Blues be looking for? Did they need a top 4 LH Dman?
Stewart doesn't seem to be fitting in on the Blues very well with 30 pts in 79 GP last year. Wouldn't mind seeing the Canucks roll the dice on him, could use a big natural RW on our 2nd or 3rd line. So what's he worth?
Assuming he'd be on kesler's line, he'd probably be a thirty goal scorer there. Blues need offense and have prospects galore though, so Vancouver doesn't really have anything to spare in terms of offense. Tough to see a deal.
The Blues have two very specific organizational needs (top pair LHD and top-two center) and the Canuck roster players at that level are all off the table. Even if they were on the table the Blues would have to add. Teams hear that and they say great and start naming pieces that we wouldn't want to move because it would create a hole. What's the point of using Stewart in a package trade to fill one hole if it opens up another hole? So we aren't really good partners.
No the Blues need a top pairing LH defenseman not a top 4.
This, trading our forward depth for
anything else makes no sense. I don't think we need a top 6 two way center like most, Backes and Berglund are just fine. We could use a third line center but not at the cost of Stewart.
This, trading our forward depth for
anything else makes no sense. I don't think we need a top 6 two way center like most, Backes and Berglund are just fine. We could use a third line center but not at the cost of Stewart.
For me, I'd give up Edler for 2nd line RW that fits with Kesler.
Who on the Blues roster that fits to this description?
For me, I'd give up Edler for 2nd line RW that fits with Kesler.
Who on the Blues roster that fits to this description?
Chris Stewart. The other RWs are Oshie (almost certainly not available), Tarasenko (same deal) and D'Agostini. D'Agostini is more of a 3rd liner though he did become a 20 goal scorer when given 2nd line minutes and he is on a very cheap contract. He'd be a good asset to have if you're trying to gain cap/salary space. Plus, he's a RFA at the end of his next contract. I've always liked him but we have a LOT of wingers in St. Louis so he didn't see as much action this season as he should have.
I have a hard time trying to figure out fair value for this kind of trade since Edler is UFA after this season and both Stewy and Dags are RFA. I don't want to offend anyone so I won't even try to put a trade together. I'm not even sure Edler is what we're after anyway. I do think Stewy and Dags would have better stats in the Canucks system though.
This, trading our forward depth for
anything else makes no sense. I don't think we need a top 6 two way center like most, Backes and Berglund are just fine. We could use a third line center but not at the cost of Stewart.
Honestly, I'd love a 1-way top line center so long as he is real good up there. Set him up with Steen and Oshie on his wings and I'm pretty sure they could cover his ass more often than not and give him plenty of room to perform. However, a solid number 3 center would be infinitely cheaper and easier to come by so that is almost certainly what is going to happen.
Honestly, I'd love a 1-way top line center so long as he is real good up there. Set him up with Steen and Oshie on his wings and I'm pretty sure they could cover his ass more often than not and give him plenty of room to perform. However, a solid number 3 center would be infinitely cheaper and easier to come by so that is almost certainly what is going to happen.
my problem here is that i dont believe in having a system set in place that only certain players/lines have to follow. if you have a line doing this all year and oshie has to move to a different line, now he is doing something different than what he practiced all year. maybe he could do it and maybe he would struggle but its not worth the risk imo.
in our system, the center has more responsibility across the board so why change that system for one player
Edler is the LHD I had in mind when I said unavailable because I agree with other posters he's worth more than Stewart. Stewart has more trade value than what is currently popular on HF, and in any event Armstrong wouldn't trade him for as low a price as the scraps some fans have offered. That said, the Blues would have to add to get Edler and I'm not sure the + is something the Blues would be willing to pay. I'd pay a Stewart + 1st or Stewart + Cole but beyond minor pieces past that (later picks, non blue-chip prospects) you start creating holes on the roster that would be too much for the Blues to justify giving up. And I'm not sure Vancouver wants to do that with Edler.
Of course, if Vancouver signs Garrison maybe there's something to talk about (he's also our first realistic choice, everyone would like Suter).
Will the Blues even qualify Stewart? They can use that $3.25M somewhere else. Hitch is a demanding guy. Stewart is like Wolski. He has the ability but something is missing.
Will the Blues even qualify Stewart? They can use that $3.25M somewhere else. Hitch is a demanding guy. Stewart is like Wolski. He has the ability but something is missing.
There is absolutely no doubt that they will qualify him.
What would the + have to be to Stewart to get Edler or is it just too far away value vise?
Too far away.
I'd love to deal Edler for Oshie, I think that one is lopsided in the Blues favour (they're the same age and Edler got within five points of Oshie from the blueline) but if Edler is getting dealt, to me Oshie is the one roster player that has to be coming back.
Unless the Blues want to deal David Backes, but we all know that's not happening.
(Just like Edler for Stewart isn't happening.)
Anyway the Canucks would have to make major moves to be able to deal Alex Edler without suffering a massive downgrade on the blueline, so we're strictly in fantasyland here.
I can't imagine Stewart's value is to high after last year so as much as I like Edler I think it's in the Blues best interest to hold onto Stewart and give him a one year "prove yourself" contract.
I can't imagine Stewart's value is to high after last year so as much as I like Edler I think it's in the Blues best interest to hold onto Stewart and give him a one year "prove yourself" contract.
That is correct.
Like poster above me suggested, I think Oshie for Edler is reasonable trade.
Stewart is too far away of value from Edler to be considerd to be traded.
Who did the Blues start in net in the playoffs? Is there an undisputed #1 going into next year?
If Vancouver trades Luongo they will need another goalie. Would Elliot be available? Does St. Louis have a goalie prospect that could be ready to back up Halak for 20 or so games next year?
Not that the Canucks want to get into that potential goalie controversy again but some insurance would be nice seeing that Schneider hasn't proven himself to be a true #1 for a full season. Gillis said many times that he liked having the luxury of having two top quality net minders.
Elliot's price tag is pretty decent at 1.8 and coupled with Schneiders (with his inevitable raise) the Canucks would still be paying roughly what they are now for two quality goalies.
