There has been quite a discourse regarding the Blues perceived lack of inactivity on the free agent front. Angry Blues fans from the water cooler to message boards are chiming in that they are not so happy with Doug Armstrong’s alleged inability and unwillingness to bring in “upgrades”. I mean not to harm the feelings of my Blues brethren, but there is also a fan unwillingness to accept the reality of the situation the team is in.

Fans are emotionally involved with their teams. Its something that gives professional sports a great depth of substance. Often those emotions neglect to take in to account that their team is really a business. In business, at least in my experience, FAQs are often disseminated to explain “why” and provide background in to a process or event.

Here is my attempt at a Blues Free Agency FAQ. Questions I have seen on Blues sites, blogs, message boards, or just from co-workers and friends. I’ve paraphrased the questions to lump together the most common issues.

Q. Doug Armstrong said this would be an “ambitious summer”. How is one trade (Halak) ambitious?

A. Words have connotative meanings, a personal interpretation. When Armstrong said this he was going more creativity rather than going all in.

The reality of the Blues situation is that there is not a lot of available money long-term. Many of the best free agents want lover terms. This is more to do with the lack of a replacement for TowerBrook than it is about Barret Jackman‘s contract. They just can’t take on an inflated contract right now. What money that is available will be reserved for the homegrown talent. That means Erik Johnson and David Perron this summer and David Backes, TJ Oshie, Roman Polak and Patrik Berglund next summer.

Given those constraints Armstrong had to find scoring other ways. Hence the trade for a young energy line player with skill like Vladimir Sobotka. Acquiring AHL scorer TJ Hensick. Retaining Matt D’Agostini. Finding scoring from cheaper avenues.

Ambition from filling holes in unconventional ways. Not ambition in terms of spending a lot of cash.

Q. The Blues said they won’t spend money on free agents. How can this be?

A. This quote from an early off season interview has been largely misunderstood. The correct paraphrase of the quote from John Davidson is that the Blues wouldn’t spend over a certain amount per year on one free agent.

The example given was $8 million dollars a season or more on someone like Patrick Marleau or Ilya Kovalchuk.

As covered already this has to do with the loss of TowerBrook and the Blues lacking long-term financial backing with deep enough pockets to eat a salary like that. The Blues haev spent money in free agency. They have retained many of their own players and signed three players they traded for. Jaroslav Halak, Sobotka, and Hensick.

Q. The Blues are short on scoring, how can they not go after Kovalchuk?

A. Outside of the fiscal concerns there are team building issues at work. The Blues have said they believe in building strong from the back out. Having a stable netminder to grow with and a solid core of defensemen. You can argue that the Blues have that now with Halak, Erik Johnson, Roman Polak, and Alex Pietrangelo. At the same time there are still question marks surrounding each one of those players. The assumed core the Blues will rely on in the back end hasn’t been proven yet. It’s very hard to a team to justify spending what Kovalchuk wants when you don’t have the base of the team totally squared away.

Fans also shouldn’t forget that in the summer of 2011 the Blues have to re-sign David Backes, Patrik Berglund and TJ Oshie up front. Allocating $8 million or more just to Kovalchuk means that two of those players are gone come 2011-2012.

One final thought to take in to account. The Blues don’t feel like they are short on scoring. There is a real belief that players like Berglund, Backes, and Brad Boyes will recover and post seasons closer to their 2008-2009 totals.

Given what Kovalchuk’s New Jersey contract is rumored to look like he would addroughly $7-$8 million in salary to the payroll. With only Eric Brewer’s $4.25 million contract coming off the books, there would be very little wiggle room.

Q. Why did the Blues re-sign Brad Winchester?

A. I’ve seen this question a lot and I understand why its asked. Brad did well under Andy Murray, but seemed to be a pet project. As terrible as that sounds many fans have that feeling. After a successful run in the second half of the 2008-2009 Brad couldn’t find the mojo throughout 2009-2010.

When Brad is on he is skating with purpose, forechecking, taking the body and crashing the net. At $700,000 the potential to score 20 goals is an amazing value. Not many may believe he can do it, mainly because Murray said he could, but the potential is there. The Blues are hoping that a low dollar gamble can pay off big time.

Low Risk, High Reward ambition.

Q. Why re-sign Colaiacovo? That makes it harder for Pietrangelo to make the team.

A. On the surface this is a legitimate question and concern. One that I struggled with. If the Blues want to inject more home grown talent, why potentially pay inflated open market prices for Colaiacovo?

The Blues didn’t have to pay full open market price. Colaiacovo was allowed to shop his services and he didn’t find the price he wanted. Teams like Tampa, Buffalo, and the Islanders could have used his services, but they weren’t going to give Carlo the deal he wanted. His contract is very economical with an average of $2.15 million paid over the two seasons. Leaving room for a good sized Entry Level Contract like Pietrangelo’s to sit on the NHL roster.

Davis Payne is now the Head Coach. With a full season to twist and mold his team he could break away from the mold of a defensive defenseman paired with an offensive defenseman. The trend could easily become “who are the 5th and 6th best defensemen right now? Play those two”.

Until Pietrangelo comes to training camp and shows what he can do, the door is wide open. Mind you he is competing against Ian Cole and Tyson Strachan for one of the last two available roster spots on defense.

Q. Why did the Blues add “tweener” forwards like Matt D’Agostini, Vladimir Sobotka, and TJ Hensick?

A. I’ve covered this some already with the Armstrong brand of “ambition”. There is more to these three though.

D’Agostini scored 12 goals in 53 games as a rookie with the Montreal Canadians in 2008-2009. A projected pace of roughly 19 goals in 82 games. That’s only two behind the pace that Patrik Berglund gave the Blues in the same season. Matt can score and could greatly benefit from a full season under a coach like Payne. A more open system allowing players to rely on their talents instead of relying on the system.

Sobotka brings a good amount of experience at his young age. He was an important part of Boston’s playoff run this spring. There is a skill level he has that Blues energy line players haven’t had in a while. Not to mention his speed compared to Keith Tkachuk’s in that role last season.

Hensick has all the skill needed to be an every day NHL player. It just hasn’t happened yet. If he doesnt catch on in the NHL, you know he can bring you experience and a scoring punch at the AHL level to a very young Peoria roster.

Q. Did the Blues overpay for Alex Steen?

A. Not yet. Players like Steen do not grow on trees. There are not many who can play all special teams situations, serve on the top line or shut down line and pace to score 25 goals and 50 points. That is exactly what Steen did in an injury shortened season.

Q. If the Blackhawks could add a big name to their young core of players, why can’t the Blues?

A. The Blackhawks are a money making machine right now. Even before their Cup victory they were the darlings of the second most important city in America. They were all over TV and selling out every game. Real sell outs, not the Blues version of sellouts. Their ownership is stable. Yes, they rolled the dice big time. However, they made sure money was left to secure their core. That means protecting guys like Keith, Kane, Toews, Sharp and Seabrook. Cap management has not been an easy task for them, but the money was there for the guys who matter most. Once they had the funds and scenario secure to make a move, they did.

Are the Blues racking money in hand over fist? Nope.
Is their future core secure? Not yet.

The two teams aren’t on even ground for the Blues to make that kind of move…yet.

Q. Are the Blues making a mistake if they don’t lock Perron and Johnson down long term?

A. That is perhaps the most open ended question I’ve seen out in Blues nation. Neither player has really had that “break out” season yet. Erik was hampered by his golf cart injury forcing him to miss all of the 2008-2009 season.Perron hasn’t been able to sustain a consistent level of effort over long stretches his whole career.

Which begs the question, have they proven that they deserve the long term deal yet?

No, they haven’t. Which is why the speculation persists that before either player can sign long term the Blues want to see what they do over the course of a shorter deal. This puts both players in the ball park of two years and much less than they likely wanted.

If they take one year deals then their backs are against the wall. Having to prove their worth over the other four free agents I mentioned earlier. Survival of the fittest brings out the best in players? We shall see.

Jeff Quirin
NHLHS St. Louis Blues Correspondent
jquirin@nhlhotstove.com
Twitter: @MuSigma45