He didn't give a specific reason. He just said it was time.
There is great potential for that to happen, yes. Will it? We don't know because McPhee is going to have potential deals all over the league and not all of them can happen of course.
I don't know. They played Nashville pretty close and the Predators are playing for the Cup. I am NOT saying the Blues were Cup material. They didn't make enough plays against the Preds, who deserved to win the series. But with Tarasenko, Fabbri, Schwartz, Pietrangelo, Allen, etc., this isn't a team that you blow up. If you blow things up, you could be talking 4-5 years to become a contender again. You want to be out of the mix for 4-5 years during the prime of Tarasenko's career. Sure they need to make some bold moves like Nashville has (Weber/Subban, Jones/Johansen, Trotz/Laviolette), but this team is closer to needing a couple of pieces than it is needing an overhaul.
I'll let you know after I go there.
A lot to like, but they can't take for granted that this young core is enough to get them over the hump. They're going to have to find some help at center and continue to build around this group.
I'm guessing he'll start next season in the AHL and that we'll see him at some point in the season. We've mentioned that he's played more wing than center lately, but can play both. He's got the potential to be a top-line player, sure, but there's a long ways to go.
Pittsburgh has Crosby and Malkin. If the Blues had those two players, they might be more offensive-minded too. You have to be defensively sound and then hope to find a player in the draft like Tarasenko and then build the offense around him. I don't think the Blues' playoff exit or Pittsburgh's success doesn't do anything to change that.
If I'm the Blues, I was protecting Reaves before they hired his buddy Ott.
Anything is possible. The Blues can make any deals with Vegas they want, involving Blues players, picks in exchange for anyone on Vegas' roster, which could include players they take from other teams that are left unprotected.
I've got to cut it a little short today, so I'll answer a couple of more questions.
There have been some questionable ones and I'm not shy to point those out. But we have to keep in mind that there are circumstances that come into play when signing some of these deals that we seem to forget over time. A deal paying Bouwmeester $5.4 million per year when he signed it wasn't that bad of a deal. Also, keep in mind that in order to get the AAV down, teams sometimes have to give players more term, such as giving Bouwmeester five years. Has he lost a step? Yeah and that's what makes it look like a bad contract now. But for a few years, the Blues got a pretty deal for him and he's still a dependable d-man. With Stastny, they needed a top-line center and he as the best available in that free-agency class and they knew it was going to cost them. If they didn't sign him, fans would have criticized for not bucking up. And if they wouldn't have signed him, who would they have put in that role the past couple years. So yeah the contracts don't look great after a couple of years, but often times there are reasons why they were signed or why they were constructed the way they were.
I would never doubt anything in NHL free agency. I don't know that I would pay him $6 million-plus, but we're talking about NHL general managers here. The thing about Tampa is that it's in Florida, so no state tax, which makes it around $6.5 million. But in addition to the money not being what he wanted, I think Shattenkirk wants to play in New York or Boston, and those are teams that could pay him what he's looking for.
I think it's possible they don't qualify him.
OK, I'm going to run now, but I promise I'll make it up with a longer chat in the coming weeks. Thanks for joining me today and again have a great holiday weekend!