I think he'll still have a hard time making the opening-day roster, but he certainly has put himself on the club's radar.
Yes, unless that player was exempt from the expansion draft (such as a player with only a year or two of experience).
Reaves is under contract for this coming season, so it would have to be via trade. Maroon also has a year left in Tampa. So I don't know what to tell you.
He'd be perfect for what the Blues (and a lot of teams) need: a physical left winger (who can also play center), who can score, and who has leadership qualities. The Blues are definitely interested and why wouldn't they be? He's coming off a contract in which he averaged $5.57 million cap hit a year, and will get a raise. I know Colorado has Grubauer to re-sign and Makar (as an RFA). But they have $25 million in cap space, and I have to think they'll find a way to get it done.
Wow, I hadn't even thought of that. But with eight players under contract ranging in cap hits from Kucherov at $9.5 million to Killorn at $4.4 million, I'd have to say yeah, he gets exposed.
Listen, the Blues have to find some offense if they lose Tarasenko, Schwartz and Hoffman. But I totally agree with you. The problem with the team this past season was defense, not offense. And that falls largely - although obviously not entirely - on the D-corps and goaltending. I think the Blues are expecting their returning D-men to be better. But I think you can make the case for adding a top 4 D-man. I'm writing about the D-corps for Thursday's paper with an overview story that should be posted later today.
You free up cap money by losing Tarasenko either via trade or expansion draft, you throw a LOT of money at Landeskog with some term - at least 6 years , you offer Thomas and Dunn to Calgary for Tkachuk,
Can't say that I've seen it either. But aren't hockey players more into smelling salts.
He's only 56, which seems very young to me. I think as long as the Blues are a contender, he's here. I think he really likes St. Louis. And he's had a long run of sustained success here. But if the Blues fall out of contender status, maybe he looks for another challenge.
Isn't that something with Colorado? All that top-end talent and they can't get out of the second round. As for the rest of the Central, Winnipeg and Dallas don't figure to be pushovers. I think Nashville's heading downward. Arizona is new to the Central now that Seattle is in the league, and the Coyotes don't figure to be contenders in the division. But they always give the Blues fits. In a way, I see your point. But I can also see the Blues finishing fifth.
Oleksiak's a UFA this year, so you could still get him. He's a lefty, so you could pair him with, say, Parayko and slide Scandella down to the third unit. I think Perunovich needs some AHL time, particularly since he didn't play last season due to the shoulder injury.
Yeah. He kept it simple. Stayed out of trouble. The guy has played in 100-plus NHL games, so he's got some experience in the big leagues. As a ninth, 10th D-man, you've got to like him. The Blues obviously liked what they saw because they signed him to a modest contract extension during the season.
I'm sure the Blues will make a run at him if he hits the market.
I hadn't hear or seen this, so I'm not going to comment. Other than say the more teams on his trade list, the better. But if it comes down to the Blues exposing him in the expansion draft, I think it's more likely they have to give up something else in order for Seattle to take him rather than the other way around.
I don't remember a lot of details about Reaves prior to coming on the Blues beat in 2017. But I tend to agree with you on his current style of play.
Yes, in theory Tarasenko could decide to go to the KHL once selected by Seattle in the expansion draft. And no, the Blues would not have to award Seattle an additional player once he was drafted by the Kraken. It would be Seattle's problem at that point.
With a no-trade clause, you can still expose a player in the expansion draft, waive him, or assign him to the minors. With a no-move clause, you can do none of the above.
One, they're very good. Two, most have been doing it for a long, long time.- it takes years to build up sources. Three, they work for organizations that have a national/international "brand" and with the brand comes stature and clout. I've found this to be the case in the NFL as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case in MLB or the NBA.