Someone posted the last two drafts where goaltenders were traded.

The Blues were vastly underpaid. I think the conditional is too low as well. I suspect he will be moved to Chicago fro Crow.

Someone posted the last two drafts where goaltenders were traded.

The Blues were vastly underpaid. I think the conditional is too low as well. I suspect he will be moved to Chicago fro Crow.
- BluemanGuruu

I don't think we got a bad deal.

I like seeing Brodziak and Upshall brought back. Solid for cheap. Plus Brodziak for 2 years means him and Reaves unprotected satisfy our forward requirements for expansion draft.

I like seeing Brodziak and Upshall brought back. Solid for cheap. Plus Brodziak for 2 years means him and Reaves unprotected satisfy our forward requirements for expansion draft.
- Antilles

Expansion was my first thought too. Good deal getting him for 2 years.

Blues continue to fill out the roster - Brodziak back with an AAV under 1mm for 2 year deal.

Would you rather have Forsberg or Schwartz? Forsberg singed a 6/36 deal today.

Blues qualifying offers made to:

Jaden Schwartz
Magnus Paajarvi
Ty Rattie
Anders Nilsson
Jordan Binnington
Jordan Caron
Pheonix Copley
Jacob Doty

Would you rather have Forsberg or Schwartz? Forsberg singed a 6/36 deal today.
- Jason Millen

Both are good players. This should help Armstrong in the negotiations. 6 per would be what they should be looking for. Maybe a bit more if they go 7 or 8 years.

I would also be willing to include him in a trade with Shattenkirk to land a 1st line center.

Would you rather have Forsberg or Schwartz? Forsberg singed a 6/36 deal today.
- Jason Millen

Forsberg. But then again if we ever see that Schwartz healthy who steals pucks on the backcheck deep in the zone. The one that does not force passes to Tarasenko or defer to him everytime as if he were being told to get him the puck...then I will take that Schwartz.

I don't think we got a bad deal.
- carcus

Not a bad deal, just not as good as probably should have been given...

Lehner gets 1st rounder plus.

Talbot got what second plus

Anderson fetched a first plus

Anderson I personally think is better but he was signed for a year at a cheap cap hit and is still the most comparable to Elliott on that list. Lehner was grossly overpaid for and it would be more shocking if he stayed healthy and was good.

Not a bad deal, just not as good as probably should have been given...

Lehner gets 1st rounder plus.

Talbot got what second plus

Anderson fetched a first plus

Anderson I personally think is better but he was signed for a year at a cheap cap hit and is still the most comparable to Elliott on that list. Lehner was grossly overpaid for and it would be more shocking if he stayed healthy and was good.
- BluemanGuruu

Those guys are different from Elliott. All are younger guys by at least a few years, some much younger.

Also to note: Anderson's first was 5 spots ahead of Elliott's second. Not really a big difference there. He also got a 2nd in 17 which will be better than Elliott's conditional 3rd, but it really is a good return for Elliott considering his age/contract status of UFA in one year.

Those guys are different from Elliott. All are younger guys by at least a few years, some much younger.

Also to note: Anderson's first was 5 spots ahead of Elliott's second. Not really a big difference there. He also got a 2nd in 17 which will be better than Elliott's conditional 3rd, but it really is a good return for Elliott considering his age/contract status of UFA in one year.
- carcus

Not really. When the Andersen trade was made he was an rfa and had no contract. He is younger to be sure. Still is a big difference because of cap hit. Look a one year deal on a goaltender new to your team that is proven as great back up and solid starter, with that tiny cap hit is a great pick up. This only one year on their contract crap is nonsense. A draft pick is not a sure thing especially in the second round. You might have an idea but it is not for sure.

This narrative of one year and might be gone so the price should be significantly lower is a crock. Best deal you can get because you can always flip that asset if it does not look like a good fit. Much better than being tied to a big cap hit for three or more years to a declining asset or a piece that does not fit your system well and thus hurts the asset's value.

I understand your point and in part am knowingly splitting hairs, but proven entities have more value in sports period. Imagine Binnington being your starter next year, labeled as such at this moment. You might think oh man this is likely to be bad or good, but you really have no idea how it will turn out, but if you were critically thinking bout it, you likely are thinking that is not a good idea.

Erik Johnson is a prime example. He is a solid player but no where near being worthy of a number one over all pick. At the time he was the lock for that pick. It has happened in the past as well.

I would bet a $100 if you could privtely ask and you were to get the absolute truth Calgary's GM cannot believe his luck. If his team struggles at all, with all the young guys they still carry and a new coach, that is a great asset at the deadline. Unless an injury or he craps the bed. In that case you are lucky because his contract is up and you are off the hook in a cap league likely with a number of FA goaltenders or excess netminders available.

I still think they are looking at making a move with Chicago.

I hope the Blues go after Brett Connolly.

Both are good players. This should help Armstrong in the negotiations. 6 per would be what they should be looking for. Maybe a bit more if they go 7 or 8 years.

I would also be willing to include him in a trade with Shattenkirk to land a 1st line center.
- carcus

I would think Forsberg's deal sets Schwartz's value higher than 6 mil for a long term deal. They have similar stats but Jaden is a coupe years older so his deal will be more costly with more UFA years.

Not really. When the Andersen trade was made he was an rfa and had no contract. He is younger to be sure. Still is a big difference because of cap hit. Look a one year deal on a goaltender new to your team that is proven as great back up and solid starter, with that tiny cap hit is a great pick up. This only one year on their contract crap is nonsense. A draft pick is not a sure thing especially in the second round. You might have an idea but it is not for sure.

This narrative of one year and might be gone so the price should be significantly lower is a crock. Best deal you can get because you can always flip that asset if it does not look like a good fit. Much better than being tied to a big cap hit for three or more years to a declining asset or a piece that does not fit your system well and thus hurts the asset's value.

I understand your point and in part am knowingly splitting hairs, but proven entities have more value in sports period. Imagine Binnington being your starter next year, labeled as such at this moment. You might think oh man this is likely to be bad or good, but you really have no idea how it will turn out, but if you were critically thinking bout it, you likely are thinking that is not a good idea.

Erik Johnson is a prime example. He is a solid player but no where near being worthy of a number one over all pick. At the time he was the lock for that pick. It has happened in the past as well.

I would bet a $100 if you could privtely ask and you were to get the absolute truth Calgary's GM cannot believe his luck. If his team struggles at all, with all the young guys they still carry and a new coach, that is a great asset at the deadline. Unless an injury or he craps the bed. In that case you are lucky because his contract is up and you are off the hook in a cap league likely with a number of FA goaltenders or excess netminders available.

I still think they are looking at making a move with Chicago.
- BluemanGuruu

I'm not sure they could have gotten that much more. You have to consider that Elliott requested a trade. Anderson's value was still higher anyway. Who would you rather want as your starter for the next five years, Andersen or Elliott?

I'm not sure they could have gotten that much more. You have to consider that Elliott requested a trade. Anderson's value was still higher anyway. Who would you rather want as your starter for the next five years, Andersen or Elliott?
- fattyboubatty

Yep. The deal for Anderson was not even much better. 5 spots higher for the pick, and a second instead of a conditional 3rd. For a much younger goalie that the team wanted long term.

Elliott's return was good.

Yep. The deal for Anderson was not even much better. 5 spots higher for the pick, and a second instead of a conditional 3rd. For a much younger goalie that the team wanted long term.

Elliott's return was good.
- carcus

A second that was for sure and a first rounder.

Would you rather be picking for Matthews or at the fifth spot?

I know who I would rather have but Elliott's perceivd value, plus cap hit and term has to have a similar value. One pick five spots later and a conditional....only an if. Look at the stats for picking players in the second round versus third round and second versus first round and then the real vlue can be determined.

I would think Forsberg's deal sets Schwartz's value higher than 6 mil for a long term deal. They have similar stats but Jaden is a coupe years older so his deal will be more costly with more UFA years.
- fattyboubatty

Those are good points. But has Forsberg nearly missed a season due to injury? Because being prone to injury tends to harm a player's value, see Oshie having to sign a bridge deal and Jackman a short term in order to prove health.

A second that was for sure and a first rounder.

Would you rather be picking for Matthews or at the fifth spot?

I know who I would rather have but Elliott's perceivd value, plus cap hit and term has to have a similar value. One pick five spots later and a conditional....only an if. Look at the stats for picking players in the second round versus third round and second versus first round and then the real vlue can be determined.
- BluemanGuruu

If you are going to do that, you have to look at the stats of picking at 30 versus 35, not first round versus second round, or first overall versus fifth overall. I haven't lately, but last I looked they are pretty similar. Toronto already had an extension discussed with Andersen. They traded #30 and a second for 5 years of Andersen. We got #35 for one year of Elliott, and a third for the rights to negotiate with him early. That's great value.

If you are going to do that, you have to look at the stats of picking at 30 versus 35, not first round versus second round, or first overall versus fifth overall. I haven't lately, but last I looked they are pretty similar. Toronto already had an extension discussed with Andersen. They traded #30 and a second for 5 years of Andersen. We got #35 for one year of Elliott, and a third for the rights to negotiate with him early. That's great value.
- Antilles

I am moving on from this. i was splitting hairs and then those hairs were being split.

28 goals is like 30 except for it's not. etc etc ad naseum.

Looks like there some players to be had that I think have good value. Brett Connolly. He has some great potential. A kid like that gets over the little bit of a hump and he replaces a Brouwer for far less. Plus he has speed and strength to his game.

Maybe other teams are trying to squeeze the Blues to either get a shot at Backes or Brouwer or hope the Blues sign and are forced to move Shattenkirk with less leverage?

Maybe other teams are trying to squeeze the Blues to either get a shot at Backes or Brouwer or hope the Blues sign and are forced to move Shattenkirk with less leverage?
- BluemanGuruu

This is exactly what is happening IMO

The biggest question is what is Schwartz going to get

Army has questions

If he doesn't move Shatty than say good by to both Backes and Brouwer probably

This is exactly what is happening IMO

The biggest question is what is Schwartz going to get

Army has questions

If he doesn't move Shatty than say good by to both Backes and Brouwer probably
- sycsam

I am okay with Brouwer going, that was the plan. Okay woth Backes going if he pulls too much cap, but think he has a strong identity here and would hate to lose him.

Brouwer can be replaced. He played best in big games to be sure.

Man there are a number of younger free agents this year that are very interesting. A deoth dman could be had for the left side in Patrick Wiercioch. Joel Colborne and Bradon Pirri. Maybe they will never become stars but maybe they could be better and add value. I still think Brett Connolly is likely to break out and be a top end second line player. Everything points to it and many questions come from the Bruins use of him.

Man there are a number of younger free agents this year that are very interesting. A deoth dman could be had for the left side in Patrick Wiercioch. Joel Colborne and Bradon Pirri. Maybe they will never become stars but maybe they could be better and add value. I still think Brett Connolly is likely to break put and be a top end second line player. Everything points to it and many questions come from the Bruins use of him.
- BluemanGuruu

Wiercioch could be interesting if you want to try Edmonson with Pietro and Jay Bo with Parayko