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

Thoughts on Stewart now

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-19-2013, 01:25 PM
  #151
wilco5886
Come On You Spurs
 
wilco5886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Champbana
Country: United States
Posts: 817
vCash: 500
Looks like this is a prove it year for the current Blues roster. If they don't make it beyond the second round, there could be some big changes.

wilco5886 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:27 PM
  #152
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
Im not entirely against this deal. Everyone knows Stewart is not the most consistent player, and this makes sure we are not paying 5 mil for a worthless player. Come FA, we can try to make a strong pitch, but as for now, it gives us a little bit of cap space (most to be taken by Petro likely), and after two seasons, he may not be worth it, or alternatively, it makes sure that we will still be able to afford signing our prospects to deals.
Sure 5 years would have been great, but sometimes in a prospect rich environment, having a short term contract can also have its advantages
Our prospects currently have serious questions about if they will be NHL players. I do like Rattie and Jaskin a lot. To me they are not close to the level Schwartz and Tarasenko were. Rattie and Jaskin have question marks currently that could hurt their chances of being NHL players better yet real impact players at the NHL level.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:32 PM
  #153
Thallis
We suck again!
 
Thallis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Behind Blue Eyes
Country: United States
Posts: 3,945
vCash: 499
Send a message via MSN to Thallis
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
Our prospects currently have serious questions about if they will be NHL players. I do like Rattie and Jaskin a lot. To me they are not close to the level Schwartz and Tarasenko were. Rattie and Jaskin have question marks currently that could hurt their chances of being NHL players better yet real impact players at the NHL level.
I agree with Jaskin, but I believe Rattie is a level above him and is at least close to where Schwartz was. Rattie has found a way throughout his entire career, and while he does have to prove it, there's no doubt in my mind that he will do so and become an impact NHL player.

Thallis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:33 PM
  #154
Edgar
Registered User
 
Edgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
Our prospects currently have serious questions about if they will be NHL players. I do like Rattie and Jaskin a lot. To me they are not close to the level Schwartz and Tarasenko were. Rattie and Jaskin have question marks currently that could hurt their chances of being NHL players better yet real impact players at the NHL level.
Those two mightn't be Stewart caliber, but it could leave room for Tarasenko and Schwarts to move up the ranks, but if both increase there athleticism, atleast one should be able to make it

Edgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:33 PM
  #155
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,479
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteenMachine View Post
The other thing is in 2 years, 2/3 (including our goalies) of the team will be needing or on a new contract, the cap will have risen, and the other UFAs hitting the market might suit the team much better than Roy+Stewart could have.
That isn't any sort of reason to do this kind of contract. If Stewart doesn't fit in, then you trade him. A 5 year deal at $4.5m and you wouldn't have a problem moving him. As many flaws as he has in his game, he has still put up 27-29-57 per 82 games over the last 4 seasons.

Even if we look to trade him in a year, teams are going to be apprehensive about a player with 1 year on his deal and could easily be looking for $6m if the cap goes up.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:34 PM
  #156
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,735
vCash: 130
People have been putting too much stock into Jaskin's skating abilities. Everyone needs to remember that Backes looked like another Holmstrom when he came up, so Jaskin could definitely improve his skating by a significant amount just like Backes did.

bleedblue1223 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:40 PM
  #157
nicholas89alex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
That isn't any sort of reason to do this kind of contract. If Stewart doesn't fit in, then you trade him. A 5 year deal at $4.5m and you wouldn't have a problem moving him. As many flaws as he has in his game, he has still put up 27-29-57 per 82 games over the last 4 seasons.

Even if we look to trade him in a year, teams are going to be apprehensive about a player with 1 year on his deal and could easily be looking for $6m if the cap goes up.
it takes two to agree to a contract. Stewart as an UFA gets 6 million a year probably, just look at the Horton and Clarkson deals. so if we wanted to sign him past his UFA years we would have to pay him UFA money, more than 4.5 a year.

nicholas89alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:42 PM
  #158
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
People have been putting too much stock into Jaskin's skating abilities. Everyone needs to remember that Backes looked like another Holmstrom when he came up, so Jaskin could definitely improve his skating by a significant amount just like Backes did.
I'm not saying Jaskin will or will not. It's not something you count on though to build your team around expecting the best. You treat Jaskin as a prospect that needs to improve his skating. You treat him as a potential boom or bust prospect. He's not someone you count on to be an impact player at the NHL level.

If he turns out great then you can make a trade ect to clear a spot for him. You don't make moves expecting him to fill a spot in 2 years.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:44 PM
  #159
Sniper
It's learning...
 
Sniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
That isn't any sort of reason to do this kind of contract. If Stewart doesn't fit in, then you trade him. A 5 year deal at $4.5m and you wouldn't have a problem moving him. As many flaws as he has in his game, he has still put up 27-29-57 per 82 games over the last 4 seasons.

Even if we look to trade him in a year, teams are going to be apprehensive about a player with 1 year on his deal and could easily be looking for $6m if the cap goes up.
I disagree. If he doesnt work out in his final year, I could see a borderline playoff team needing some size taking a flier on him at the trade deadline.

Sniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:44 PM
  #160
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas89alex View Post
it takes two to agree to a contract. Stewart as an UFA gets 6 million a year probably, just look at the Horton and Clarkson deals. so if we wanted to sign him past his UFA years we would have to pay him UFA money, more than 4.5 a year.
Max Pac signed for 4.5 million after a 30 goal 60 point season. Neal signed for 5 million after a 40 goal 80 point season.

It seems like all Armstrong was willing to offer was an Oshie contract. The rumors were Stewart was asking for 5 million. The most the Blues would give is in the lower 4 range. It's not unthinkable they could have settled on 4.5. I just think Armstrong was playing hardball and in this case lost.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:47 PM
  #161
nicholas89alex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
Max Pac signed for 4.5 million after a 30 goal 60 point season. Neal signed for 5 million after a 40 goal 80 point season.

It seems like all Armstrong was willing to offer was an Oshie contract. The rumors were Stewart was asking for 5 million. The most the Blues would give is in the lower 4 range. It's not unthinkable they could have settled on 4.5. I just think Armstrong was playing hardball and in this case lost.
maybe but for me personally I like 2 year 4.15 a lot better than 5 years 4.5. I also really love the flexibility for if tarasenko breaks out. their contracts would be up the same year.

nicholas89alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:50 PM
  #162
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas89alex View Post
maybe but for me personally I like 2 year 4.15 a lot better than 5 years 4.5. I also really love the flexibility for if tarasenko breaks out. their contracts would be up the same year.
If we had Stewart at 4.5 million for 5 years he holds good trade value. If Tarasenko breaks out and we have to move Stewart we get good value in trade. Instead we will get nothing or 1 year rental trade value for Stewart.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 01:53 PM
  #163
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,479
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniper View Post
I disagree. If he doesnt work out in his final year, I could see a borderline playoff team needing some size taking a flier on him at the trade deadline.
We wouldn't have a problem moving him in a year, but teams are always going to be apprehensive of players with 1 year left on their deal and looking for a big pay day.

Move him at the deadline? We are looking to contend. You don't move significant pieces at the deadline and let his replacement have 5 minutes to settle in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas89alex View Post
maybe but for me personally I like 2 year 4.15 a lot better than 5 years 4.5. I also really love the flexibility for if tarasenko breaks out. their contracts would be up the same year.
You do not run a team with the idea that you let an asset walk away for nothing if another player breaks out. You take the that asset and you trade him.

The only redeeming factor about this deal is we saved $350k-$500k in cap hit for 2 years. That's it. Everything else about it is short sighted crap. If we don't believe in him, trade when his value is high let another team give him his RFA contract. If we believe in him, give him the 4-5 year deal that sees a nice cap hit that will make him an even more attractive asset for teams looking at him in a year or two.

This idea that we don't want to handcuff ourselves long term is the ideal way to lose players to UFA.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:06 PM
  #164
nicholas89alex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
I don't believe stewart signs for 4.5 million. I think to get a 5 year deal he would have wanted at least 4,8 million so this saves us 700k. I don't mind handcuffing ourselves with long contracts, just not for Stewart. he is so frustrating and seems to need a complimentary piece, aka stasny, to be a game changer. currently he scores a few games and disappears more. and not just on the score sheet, his entire game is awful for long stretch's.

nicholas89alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:13 PM
  #165
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,479
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas89alex View Post
I don't believe stewart signs for 4.5 million. I think to get a 5 year deal he would have wanted at least 4,8 million so this saves us 700k. I don't mind handcuffing ourselves with long contracts, just not for Stewart. he is so frustrating and seems to need a complimentary piece, aka stasny, to be a game changer. currently he scores a few games and disappears more. and not just on the score sheet, his entire game is awful for long stretch's.
Okay, let's say that we signed Stewart for 4 years at $4.75m per. That is still a better contract, and we coud have put the cheap years first.

Even if he remains as inconsistant, he maintains decent trade value. Hell, just look at the fact Ryane Clowe just got $4.85m for 5 years and is 30! Teams would still queue up to take a gamble on him.

If he puts up 30-30 (as I said, he has averaged 27-29 per 82 games over the past 4 seasons), then we have a cheap player with great trade value. If our other guys come along, then we take advantage of that trade value and move him.

If Stewart has a good year, then this deal puts us in an awkward position next summer where we are almost forced to trade him.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:15 PM
  #166
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,444
vCash: 500
I guess one of my biggest issues is there is almost no chance Stewart is with the Blues when his contract is up.

He's signed for 2 years so we will have a choice to trade him after this season as a 1 year rental or we let him walk for nothing.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:16 PM
  #167
nicholas89alex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
Okay, let's say that we signed Stewart for 4 years at $4.75m per. That is still a better contract.

Even if he remains as inconsistant, he maintains decent trade value. Hell, just look at the fact Ryane Clowe just got $4.85m for 5 years and is 30! Teams would still queue up to take a gamble on him.

If he puts up 30-30 (as I said, he has averaged 27-29 per 82 games over the past 4 seasons), then we have a cheap player with great trade value. If our other guys come along, then we take advantage of that trade value and move him.

If Stewart has a good year, then this deal puts us in an awkward position next summer where we are almost forced to trade him.
or we could resign him as the cap goes up. in 2 years the cap will probably be up to 70 million so that's 5 million in space, assuming we are able to spend the cap. so a 2 million dollar raise would be possible if he proves he deserves it. but I will concede if he earns the raise than army messed up. but I would prefer to mess up like this than to over pay someone and them drag the team down.

nicholas89alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:28 PM
  #168
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,479
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas89alex View Post
or we could resign him as the cap goes up. in 2 years the cap will probably be up to 70 million so that's 5 million in space, assuming we are able to spend the cap. so a 2 million dollar raise would be possible if he proves he deserves it. but I will concede if he earns the raise than army messed up. but I would prefer to mess up like this than to over pay someone and them drag the team down.
Again though, at $4.75m there would be no problem moving him for a draft pick if things didn't work out. GM's love the potential players like Stewart show. There is no downside to the 4 year deal at the higher long term money.

Also, just because we are spending the cap this year does not mean that is going to be the continuing trend. If the cap goes up to $70m+ in 2 years time, do you think we'll be maxing that out every year? So no, we can't afford to let every player prove themselves to every possible dime on their contract. If we do that, we end up paying close to market value for everyone, and we start being forced to move players.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:32 PM
  #169
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
Again though, at $4.75m there would be no problem moving him for a draft pick if things didn't work out. GM's love the potential players like Stewart show. There is no downside to the 4 year deal at the higher long term money.

Also, just because we are spending the cap this year does not mean that is going to be the continuing trend. If the cap goes up to $70m+ in 2 years time, do you think we'll be maxing that out every year? So no, we can't afford to let every player prove themselves to every possible dime on their contract. If we do that, we end up paying close to market value for everyone, and we start being forced to move players.
And giving them contracts that last only until the are UFAs means we will get nothing in return for them. So not only do we lose the player we have not asset as well. No top player no top prospects so we'll just become a bad team again and need a rebuild.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:50 PM
  #170
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas89alex View Post
I don't believe stewart signs for 4.5 million. I think to get a 5 year deal he would have wanted at least 4,8 million so this saves us 700k. I don't mind handcuffing ourselves with long contracts, just not for Stewart. he is so frustrating and seems to need a complimentary piece, aka stasny, to be a game changer. currently he scores a few games and disappears more. and not just on the score sheet, his entire game is awful for long stretch's.
I personally think if Stewart were to sign for 5 years it would have taken over 5 per...if Army could have gotten 5 years at 4.5 I am sure he does it.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:56 PM
  #171
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,479
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
And giving them contracts that last only until the are UFAs means we will get nothing in return for them. So not only do we lose the player we have not asset as well. No top player no top prospects so we'll just become a bad team again and need a rebuild.
Yeah, I just don't see the potential upside for the team with this contract. Unless we trade him before the end of the coming season.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:57 PM
  #172
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
Okay, let's say that we signed Stewart for 4 years at $4.75m per. That is still a better contract, and we coud have put the cheap years first.

Even if he remains as inconsistant, he maintains decent trade value. Hell, just look at the fact Ryane Clowe just got $4.85m for 5 years and is 30! Teams would still queue up to take a gamble on him.

If he puts up 30-30 (as I said, he has averaged 27-29 per 82 games over the past 4 seasons), then we have a cheap player with great trade value. If our other guys come along, then we take advantage of that trade value and move him.

If Stewart has a good year, then this deal puts us in an awkward position next summer where we are almost forced to trade him.
I agree that if Stewart goes off next year like he is capable of and scores 35+ the only option is pay him a lot or trade him at draft. This contract sucks but it is also what we had to know was going to happen if we didn't give him the 5+ he was looking for. This is the best scenario for Stewart as he knows he is two good years away from cashing in huge money. This was why I kept saying Stewart knows in UFA he is gonna get paid and his agent played it perfect. Especially pairing him with Roy.

At this point best case is he has a career year this year and we trade him for something good.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:58 PM
  #173
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
And giving them contracts that last only until the are UFAs means we will get nothing in return for them. So not only do we lose the player we have not asset as well. No top player no top prospects so we'll just become a bad team again and need a rebuild.
That's why we need to hope he produces big and we trade him in offseason. This team is not gonna pay him what he will get or else they would have just done it.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 05:49 PM
  #174
oPlaiD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 385
vCash: 500
I'm actually not that mad about this... because I feel like the Blues don't think Stewart is really a fit on their team. They need him this year because they don't have anyone else who they can rely on to score (and relying on Stewart is still iffy - last season he had a good pace but with an inflated shooting percentage; at this career rate he was on a 22 goal pace... so maybe with some more shot production thanks to Roy, we can expect him to bump that up a bit, but 30 goals could be pushing it).

A lot of the players we've been comparing to Stewart offer more on the ice than he does since they do more things than Stewart. Heck, Oshie is a better player than Stewart. Maybe he doesn't score as much, but he does at a good rate and is more effective in all phases of the game. I'd much rather have Oshie on my team. I don't mind the Blues refusing to give in to the NHL trend of paying guys almost solely based off of point and goal totals, especially considering how much they fluctuate year to year.

This deal allows them to sign Pietrangelo for whatever he wants long term without worrying about any more cap complications this season. If that doesn't happen... then I'll definitely be mad with Armstrong.

It's also set up to allow Stewart to easily be traded after this season, if Tarasenko and Schwartz take the next step, and maybe one of Rattie of Jaskin shows they can be a solid contributor.

A contract with one year on it is much easier to move than a longer term deal since more teams will be capable of fitting it into their short and long term plan. It's also very likely that Stewart wanted significantly more AAV to buy out free agent years, which also decreases the tradability of the contract and breaks the flexibility the Blues have, something they really need to compete with a roster that doesn't have elite first liners.

Say Tarasenko and Jaskin play well this season, they can move Stewart in a deal similar to the Perron one and pick up a younger and cheaper player who can contribute, maybe some futures, and then also have the money available to lock up a more core player to the team, Steen, and maybe go after Stastny. If Stewart has a more hefty contract they don't that flexibility.

I believe this is a response to how the Blues feel Stewart fits on the team. They don't see him as a real core piece; that's why they offered the Oshie contract. If they get him long term at that price they can be happy with it, but if he wants to be paid in the 5+ range he doesn't fit in their long term plans since he simply doesn't do enough on the ice for that and they can better use that money in the future. Signing him to this deal allows them to keep the guys they really feel are core players and not just complementary pieces.

I feel like too many people have changed their tune so much regarding Stewart after this one short season. His shooting percentage this year was much higher than any other in his career and there's like a 1% chance he'll keep that up. Likely he'll hit around his career percentage (which is still actually quite good and above average), but he doesn't generate enough shots to hit 30 goals like that. Unless he gets more ice time (which wouldn't be a great idea because he isn't that solid of a possession player) or gets much much better center play (Roy should help quite a bit, but he's not elite) Stewart is just an okay scorer. He's like Brady Boyes back in the day. Boyes's perception as a player fluctuated with shooting percentage since that was basically all he provided on the ice. When he hit an astronomical number and scored 40 goals everyone loved him but a season or two later it was tanked. Not saying the same thing will happen with Stewart (like I said he'll likely just hit his above average career shooting mark), but like Boyes, Stewart doesn't provide enough else on the ice to justify making him a core player.

oPlaiD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 05:49 PM
  #175
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 8,993
vCash: 50
Some pretty strong over-reactions here. Armstrong is building this team to make its strongest Cup push this year and next. Say they make the WCF or SCF, a guy like Stewart may be willing to re-sign for lower than UFA market value (though still receive a nice raise from the Blues) at his next contract in order to stay a part of the puzzle. The cap situation may be a bit different (could go up a bit).

Anyway, just like trading current draft picks for players to bolster the roster at the deadline....the Blues are structuring contracts to allow the team to maximize this coming season. To me this contract reflects some trust between Stewart and Armstrong. If Stewart walks at the end, fine. But the Blues will have a chance to re-sign him before UFA if there is a mutual desire....and it will probably mean Chris is willing to accept something below his maximum market value to do so. If he's the guy the Blues need, Armstrong will give him a raise.

Anyway, I just see some over-reactions. I think Armstrong has done a great job getting all the pieces he wants signed under the cap (and Pietro will be there, too) in order to put a very formidable team on the ice this year.

2 Minute Minor 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 10:20 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.