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

blues/sharks proposal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-23-2007, 02:43 PM
  #26
Stealth JD
Drexel's dead!!!
 
Stealth JD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Safari Motor Motel
Country: United States
Posts: 6,192
vCash: 500
I'd just assume keep our top 10 prospects......but if Marleau can be acquired for the right price, I wouldn't mind losing 1 or 2 of our rebuilding chips. Afterall, the Sharks aren't going to trade a legitimate #1 Center unless they feel as though the package is fair. I have a hard time believing that the Blues spare parts alone will be enough to make this trade happen.

I'd love to see Backman, a couple of picks and a mid-level prospect (Kana, Guathier, Lemtyugov, etc.) land a top line center.....but it ain't gonna happen. If I'm the Sharks, I ask for Oshie, Berglund, Stempniak, Jackman, etc.....and I doubt the Blues pay that price.

I don't think anyone is saying "mortgage the future for Marleau", rather they're acknowledging that he'd be nice to have....

Stealth JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 05:02 PM
  #27
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I don't think it's that they've really soured on him; rather, the team is in need of a shake-up. The Sharks are beginning to look like the 1980's Washington Capitals. A good regular season team, but never break through in the playoffs. San Jose should have gone to a final by this point. They've blown two series' that were completely in hand the last two years, and maybe even three if you go back to 2004, but that was a much different team. I think it would kind of be like Ottawa trading Marian Hossa for Heatley two years ago.

The reason Marleau is being mentioned specifically is because he's their most tradable asset. A point-per-game center in his prime with no injury history at all, and a pretty decent playoff record until this year. That underlined statement is why he was a quick target. When Marleau becomes a UFA he will likely get $6 million plus. Can the Sharks afford him and Thronton both? Maybe, but if they can get good assets for him now they will consider moving him rather than seeing him go for free. But I also doubt you'd see a trade consisting mainly of picks and prospects, because the Sharks want to win now. If they were to trade with the Blues, St. Louis would probably have to give up something like "Jackman, Cajanek, Dvorak/9th overall pick" (And before it's brought up, I'm not equating Dvorak with the 9th pick. That pick is much more valuable to St. Louis than to the Sharks, and vice-versa with Dvorak). Is that too many roster players/assets to give up for a guy who's very good, but not elite? It would be if Marleau left after one year, no doubt. But if he signed a long-term extension, it could certainly be considered.
If Marleau would sign an extension and San Jose would let me sub Backman for Jackman in your proposed deal, I am in if I am the GM.

c-carp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 06:01 PM
  #28
Rush11
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Your Mom's house
Country: United States
Posts: 338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Checker View Post
So. This board, which has always blasted the Tkachuk deal as a bad deal and a deal which started us on the change of course from the successful "build from within strategy" to a strategy credited for us going through the mess that was the 2005-2006 season now wants to do something very similar? When we got Tkachuk he was a well established rare elite forward who was only a year or two older when we got him than Marleau is now. This is interesting.

My response was to the original poster's question. I'm not 100% sure that I would make that trade.

Rush11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 06:36 PM
  #29
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Checker View Post
So. This board, which has always blasted the Tkachuk deal as a bad deal and a deal which started us on the change of course from the successful "build from within strategy" to a strategy credited for us going through the mess that was the 2005-2006 season now wants to do something very similar? When we got Tkachuk he was a well established rare elite forward who was only a year or two older when we got him than Marleau is now. This is interesting.
2) How is a potential trade for Marleau even CLOSE to the trade for Tkachuk?

First off, the Tkachuk trade in and of itself was not the whole issue; it was the Conroy/Stillman and Mellanby/Morrisette(who people thought had a lot of potential due to his skating ability) deals a few weeks earlier AND the Weight deal 2 months later. We dealt off ALL of our promising youth at the time in the course of 5 months and had NOBODY else left in the system who was worth anything(with the exception of Jax/Backman). That series of trades were CRIPPILING BLOWS to our farm system at the time.

On top of that; the trade itself saw us deal off our #1 center(Handzus and Demitra were our most productive offensive duo at the time), a good 3rd line winger who(as he has shown us) had upside and two 1st round caliber picks/prospects. We overpaid to get Tkachuk. It's not nearly as big an overpayment as people play it up to be(anybody who says that this deal "killed our farm" isn't being honest; the trade itself did not kill the farm, it was the entire SERIES of trades I just illustrated that did that), but we DID overpay in this deal.



IN the proposed Marleau deal we are moving a surplus D man(Even if Backman stays he'll likely be pushed down to #5 on the chart by the end of training camp), a surplus pick(even if we DO deal the #9 we'd still have two 1st round picks; and Jarmo has already proven that "draft position" is meaningless with him at the helm), a surplus prospect(even if we deal Soderberg or Kana we'd still have Oshie, Berglund, Barriball, the remaining one of Kana/Soderberg, Lemtyugov, Alexandrov, Aaltonen, Birner, Drazenovic PLUS the morons(err, Russian trio) as forward prospects with scoring line upside) and maybe a surplus roster player(seriously; outside of Stempy, Boyes, Backes and McClement which player CAN"T we afford to lose?). While it would hurt us to lose some of those players/picks/prospects; we have the depth now to sustain such a move.

This is a seperate situation entirely.
In the Tkachuk scenario we were looking for "big names" and did whatever it took to get them.
In the proposed Marleau scenario we are dealing from a strength(defense, picks and youth) to shore up a weakness(top-end scoring).

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 10:34 PM
  #30
Frenzy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
2) How is a potential trade for Marleau even CLOSE to the trade for Tkachuk?

First off, the Tkachuk trade in and of itself was not the whole issue; it was the Conroy/Stillman and Mellanby/Morrisette(who people thought had a lot of potential due to his skating ability) deals a few weeks earlier AND the Weight deal 2 months later. We dealt off ALL of our promising youth at the time in the course of 5 months and had NOBODY else left in the system who was worth anything(with the exception of Jax/Backman). That series of trades were CRIPPILING BLOWS to our farm system at the time.
I have no problem w/ the TK deal. We WENT TO THE CONFERENCE FINALS. IT ONLY HAPPENS TO TWO TEAMS EACH YEAR.

My biggest problem was w/the Conroy for Stillman deal. Over the course at the end of the year, we lost all of our Centers. Turgeon left via free agency, Conroy gone in trade. It left us w/ nothing down the middle - no wonder Hasek wanted to play for the Redwings.

Hell, we had to convert Demitra to center. And then trade for Weight, and that cost us the last of the youth...

Any idiot still crying about Handzus and Nagy leaving for an impact player is an idiot.

Frenzy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 11:04 PM
  #31
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy1 View Post
I have no problem w/ the TK deal. We WENT TO THE CONFERENCE FINALS. IT ONLY HAPPENS TO TWO TEAMS EACH YEAR.
Yeah, because it was Keith Tkachuk that led us to the Conference Finals in 2001.

Tkachoke only had 2 playoff goals in 15 games that year. And both were when the other team was shorthanded and we were on the powerplay. He had 42 shots and only 2 goals. NONE 5 on 5!!! and took, once again, stupid penalties for the Blues.

To even suggest we got to the Conference Finals because of the Keith Tkachuk trade, well that might be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

Yeah, us getting to the Final Four had nothing to do with Deadmarsh and LA upsetting Detroit so LA got to face Colorado in the 2nd round and we got to face the downhill Dallas Stars. Because if Detroit wins...we play Colorado in the 2ND ROUND and Detroit faces the falling Stars in the 2nd round...Yeah it was all Keith Tkachuk and his 2 goals in 15 games.

Fact of the matter is that the 2001 Final Four was as big as a joke as the 2000 1st round loss to a 8 seed Sharks, as big of a joke as 2003 3-1 series lead choke job to Vancouver in the 1st round. Getting to the final four in 2001 didn't mean a thing...and it showed how bad we were by the way we played that Colorado Series. So stop bringing that Confernce Finals up as a good reason to trade for Keith 2 months earlier!!

All Keith has been good for is regular season success (minus the 2002 season) and what few Blues fans, like yourself, refuse to realize is that the Blues made the playoffs for 21 years in a row before Keith even came to the Blues. So it was almost pointless to lock up a regular season man and pay him 10 million a year, who goes in a como come April and May.

QUOTE Any idiot still crying about Handzus and Nagy leaving for an impact player is an idiot.QUOTE

I would have given anything to have Handzus and Nagy back and not paid Tkachuck 10 Million a year.

Thanks again KT for those 9 playoff goals in 41 playoff games. And thanks again Tkachoke for all those STUPID penalties you took year in and year out.

Keith Tkachuck is the exact definition of a choker


Last edited by TrustInJarmo*: 05-23-2007 at 11:24 PM.
TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 11:09 PM
  #32
Rush11
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Your Mom's house
Country: United States
Posts: 338
vCash: 500
With the Tkachuk & Weight deals (along with shipping Stillman to Tampa), the Blues went from a team with 3 scoring lines to a team with 2 scoring lines (The fact that Weight never meshed with anyone until this year pretty much made the Blues a team with only 1 scoring line). Yes, the Blues dealt away their youth, but they also dealt away their scoring depth. What we ended up with is a bunch of muckers that can't score. Individually, those deals didn't sink the Blues, but collectively I believe that they definitely hurt the Blues in terms of players lost (Handzus, Nagy, Taffe, 1st round pick, Hecht, Reasoner) and in terms of their burdensome, big dollar contracts.

What is everyone's problem with Stillman? Connie was a solid player and a likeable guy, but he never would have put up big numbers with the Blues (Most of us could center Iginla and put up decent numbers). If memory serves me correct, Stillman scored some clutch goals for Cup winning teams in TB and Car...

Rush11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 11:20 PM
  #33
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush11 View Post
What is everyone's problem with Stillman? Connie was a solid player and a likeable guy, but he never would have put up big numbers with the Blues (Most of us could center Iginla and put up decent numbers). If memory serves me correct, Stillman scored some clutch goals for Cup winning teams in TB and Car...
Thank you! I meant to bring that quote up from Frenzy1.

Yeah, who needs a guy like Stillman to put up 26 points in 25 games last year to help lead the Carolina Hurricanes to the Stanley Cup.

Ironic, Frenzy is going crazy about his love for Tkachuk..and in the same writings he says his "biggest problem" was trading Conroy for Cory Stillman...but yet STILLMAN OUTSCORED TKACHUK IN THE 2001 PLAYOFFS!!! And according to Frenzy, it was Tkachuk that led us to the Confernce Finals! HAHAHA!!

TrustInJarmo* is offline   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 03:36 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.