My guess is he'll sign a five-year deal worth, probably, I don't know, around $19.25 million. Yeah, right around there, $3.85 million AAV, just a guess. Thanks for sending in your question early.
No, the team is still on break and not available until tomorrow.
I believe this did play a role, and Armstrong admitted when he fired Hitchcock that the arrangement, including the transition to new assistant coaches, didn't work as planned. So yes, he deserves some criticism for that. Once you make that move and see that it's not working, I suppose it's about correcting it, and they did that. I would understand if fans were thinking, 'Well, you don't just move on and say Oh well, that didn't work,' and there is no blame. There should be blame. But what are you going to do that this point. As I've mentioned, Armstrong is not going to be fired. Stillman has continued to support Armstrong and I don't see that changing in the immediate future.
I was surprised that Berglund's deal was for five years. But whenever you look at contracts, you have to realize that if the years move, the dollars move. So the Blues might have been able to get him for three or four years but it might have cost them $4.5 million per year. I don't know if it was Berglund or the Blues who pushed for five, but if you're the Blues, one way to keep the dollars down is to agree to the five years. The bottom line is that either way they're going to be giving up something that probably many fans aren't going to like: big dollars or long term.
Stastny would be un-signed then, so you're spending an awful lot of money on a couple of centers if you're bringing in Tavares. Granted Stastny's not going to make $7 million per on his next deal, but ...
I don't know. He's a familiar face and was part of that old core, but he was gone a while and is different enough as a player that I wouldn't lump him with the Oshie, Berglund's and Backes.
They're practicing in STL before heading to Chicago.
I wouldn't rule it out. As the previous chatter said, with Barbashev looking like he's got some promise, the Blues have a lot of bodies in the middle. I would think the Blues would have to entertain thoughts of moving Lehtera.
I don't care who he plays for, as long as he plays until he's 50.
Fair question, but you're talking about a bump of $150,000 per year for the next five years. If you want to talk about getting better with the same players, I wouldn't argue that point. But I would say, give me the name of a pending UFA center who's 28 and will make less than $3.85 million moving forward.
No, I haven't. This is a difficult week, with the bye, trying to get updates. It's a lot easier when we're at the rink everyday. I've been busy with Shattenkirk, Berglund and the chat and Army has been unavailable.
I was planning to chat with Schwartz about how things are going when we get back from the break. As far as Fabbri, the Blues have not released any news about his surgery. This also falls under the category of tough stuff to get when you're separated from the team for 4-5 days.
I'm not sure if you're asking if Berglund has one, or you're asking the difference between the two. Berglund has a partial no-trade, but we don't know the particulars. The Blues don't give out no-movement clauses, so no one on the roster has gone. The difference between the two for either you or others who aren't aware is this ... a no-trade is obvious: can't be traded. With a no-movement, you can't be sent to the minors, you can't be picked up by Vegas in the expansion draft, etc.
A little early to say that, right?
I think all three things have played a role. I'm not saying he's going to suddenly put it together and be a 25-goal scorer for the next five years. I'm saying that health, staying at center and having better linemates has led to better play.
Any team willing to give up a big return to the Blues is going to want Shattenkirk to sign a long-term deal. So when the Blues have a deal in place with a team, they let Shattenkirk's agent talk to the team, let's say Tampa. They discuss a contract and if Shattenkirk says "no," there's no deal. Again, Tampa is not giving up a prized player if they're not getting Shattenkirk long-term because he'll walk from their team for nothing this summer, just like he would the Blues, and they'd have lost a good player. So he doesn't have a no-trade, but he essentially does. The Blues, though, could trade him anywhere as a rental and would not have to get his permission.
I think he's played much better, like the goalie we saw at the start of the season and the goalie I think some expected when he re-signed the long-term deal. That doesn't mean he's out of the woods, but he's been promising lately.
It's Armstrong's team. Does he consult Yeo? I'm sure. But Army makes the decisions.
I'm going to take a quick break here ... be back soon.
Ok, intermission is over. Who's got time for a few more questions? I do.