Last year Stewart had 30 points in 79 games. He was a healthy scratch twice in this year's playoffs.
If he'd played like that for the Bruins (after they traded for him and gave up Shattenkirk), you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder about him being re-signed at that price.
The double standard around here is unreal.
Why is looking at a larger body of work a laughable proposition? It's not as though he was scoring at a much higher rate a decade ago... It was one season removed. That same year, Chris Kelly scored 28 points in 81 games.
Statistically, you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Stewart is signed to a one-year deal. That's probation, not a long-term commitment. It's designed to show the Blues that last season was an anomaly and for Stewart to put forth a more consistent effort if he has designs toward making any money after 12-13. It's also a low enough number that if he falters, the Blues can deal him to a team who sees the potential that a 64 point sophomore could fit in nicely with their club.
I'd say there are people who whine and complain at every contract handed out in Boston... But this deal would also garner a ton of support from the hf faithful. I would venture to guess that it would have YOUR support as well, if it was Chiarelli handing it out.
If we can't get Stewart out of St. Louis, I'll take Reaves. Kid's a monster.
You guys have enough good fighters on the Bruins you just leave our tough guys alone... j/k. Some of our fans don't see the need to have more than one fighter on the team but I do. I like the way the Bruins defend their goaltender at all cost by battling it out down low and not letting the opposition park there and I think that is what kills St. Louis at times. Jackman is our only defenseman that plays confrontational in the crease, Polak is tough but he doesn't normally engage in a gritty game unless provoked. As far as the forwards Reaves is a really good fighter and is starting to develop some offensive skill as well, I think Crombeen will end up getting let go if Reaves continues to develop. Stewart can throw them pretty good too especially if he's angry, hopefully he can bounce back this year.
When some need to pass gas they write, then they say it's not them.
I would like to compare the minutes both players play.
1) People here are way too hung up on minutes. It's like "Sure that guy scored 7 more goals, but he played more minutes!!!" Guess what, 7 goals have a real effect on a team winning. Time you spend on the bench is time you aren't helping your team. If Chara is on the ice, that means non-Chara is not on the ice. There's a benefit to that.
2) It's also assumed that a player who played less minutes would score at the exact same rate they did if they had more minutes. That isn't necessarily true. Shorter/less shifts means maybe the guy can give more effort and have more effectiveness in any one shift. In fact, that's WHY Claude rolls the lines the way he does. He feels a guy is MORE EFFECTIVE when used that way. The opposite must be inversely true: more minutes would reduce his effectiveness.
3) Stewart played something like 45 seconds more a game than Kelly. If 1 shift a game really is a big deal to you then I don't know what to say.
But I tell you what, make a poll on the poll board and ask unbiased fans who they think is better.