Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

BluesSK wrote:If he would have been good enough to be playing he would have been. At least the draft pick he was involved with in the Johnson trade was a bust.

See ya, Rattie.

Good luck.

That's not always true. PRV wasn't good enough to be playing but the Blues gave him over 100 games. Rattie never got more than 13 in a season, and as I mentioned before he scored 4 goals in those 13 games. That same season, the Blues played PRV 48 games and he scored 3 goals.

I just don't think Hitch liked the kid for some reason.

Rattie wasn't good enough for a scoring role and couldn't adapt his game to the bottom 6. Jaskin and Paajarvi haven't been able to score much with any consistency, but their games have been versatile enough to crack the lower end of the lineup. Rattie does you no good on the 4th line.

Carolina seems like a good spot for him, but he's still gotta prove it. Maybe he'll end up on a line with Stepniak and McClement

I'm going to have to disagree with you that PRV's game transitioned to a proper bottom 6 role. He was a speed and offensive minded player, he was expected to produce points. He didn't. He also did not play a two-way game, was not strong on the boards, was not a physical player. Rattie was NEVER given the chance to do such.

Now, Rattie may turn out to be just another guy, a nobody, but I just don't like that it'll be determined in a new uniform instead of the team that took him #32 overall.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you that PRV's game transitioned to a proper bottom 6 role. He was a speed and offensive minded player, he was expected to produce points. He didn't. He also did not play a two-way game, was not strong on the boards, was not a physical player. Rattie was NEVER given the chance to do such.

Now, Rattie may turn out to be just another guy, a nobody, but I just don't like that it'll be determined in a new uniform instead of the team that took him #32 overall.

To be clear I'm not saying Paajarvi is a good bottom six guy, just that he was able to handle it better than Rattie last year (caveat being contract situation). Rattie was just a casualty of depth up front, and that's a good thing.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you that PRV's game transitioned to a proper bottom 6 role. He was a speed and offensive minded player, he was expected to produce points. He didn't. He also did not play a two-way game, was not strong on the boards, was not a physical player. Rattie was NEVER given the chance to do such.

Now, Rattie may turn out to be just another guy, a nobody, but I just don't like that it'll be determined in a new uniform instead of the team that took him #32 overall.

Les Snead just called... wants to know what the big deal is

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you that PRV's game transitioned to a proper bottom 6 role. He was a speed and offensive minded player, he was expected to produce points. He didn't. He also did not play a two-way game, was not strong on the boards, was not a physical player. Rattie was NEVER given the chance to do such.

Now, Rattie may turn out to be just another guy, a nobody, but I just don't like that it'll be determined in a new uniform instead of the team that took him #32 overall.

I doubt he stays with the 'canes. They put Lack on IR to fit him on their team. Once Lack is ready to come back in, Rattie will most likely be sent down (unless someone else is, or another player goes on the IR), in which case the Blues would get first dibs on him.

Dave's a mess wrote:

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you that PRV's game transitioned to a proper bottom 6 role. He was a speed and offensive minded player, he was expected to produce points. He didn't. He also did not play a two-way game, was not strong on the boards, was not a physical player. Rattie was NEVER given the chance to do such.

Now, Rattie may turn out to be just another guy, a nobody, but I just don't like that it'll be determined in a new uniform instead of the team that took him #32 overall.

To be clear I'm not saying Paajarvi is a good bottom six guy, just that he was able to handle it better than Rattie last year (caveat being contract situation). Rattie was just a casualty of depth up front, and that's a good thing.

Paajarvi's speed made it possible for him to contribute to a degree on the bottom 6.
Without speed, muscle, or quickness, Rattie had nothing to offer on those lines.

It had been rumored from time to time a couple years back that potential trade partners were interested in Rattie. Is it possible that Armstrong passed up an opportunity to land something of value because he didn't want to part with Rattie? Seems like he had some trade value at one point, and it pisses me off that they didn't move him when they could have.

insideout wrote:It had been rumored from time to time a couple years back that potential trade partners were interested in Rattie. Is it possible that Armstrong passed up an opportunity to land something of value because he didn't want to part with Rattie? Seems like he had some trade value at one point, and it pisses me off that they didn't move him when they could have.

This^^^^

What's the "something of value" that would have made you happy? Not being confrontational, but if DA would have got a fifth rounder or a 4th liner/AHL tweeter, would that have been something?

BlueinNy wrote:

insideout wrote:It had been rumored from time to time a couple years back that potential trade partners were interested in Rattie. Is it possible that Armstrong passed up an opportunity to land something of value because he didn't want to part with Rattie? Seems like he had some trade value at one point, and it pisses me off that they didn't move him when they could have.

This^^^^

I'm not really bent out of shape over this. Rattie on his own probably wouldn't have fetched much, and I think it was fair of Armstrong to think that he still had a future role with the team. As for Rattie being part of a larger deal, who the hell knows. I hardly think a team wanting Rattie included in a deal for a huge missing piece would've scared Armstrong off. If the potential return for Rattie would've been something like a third round pick, I'm fine with him holding off with the assumption that Rattie's game would develop into something useful. It didn't, so losing him for nothing isn't the end of the world.

Rattie and Fabbri are essentially the same body style....one has a 4 cylinder, one has a Hemi.

I can't fault Army for failing to get anything significant in return for Rattie. What nhl gm is going to give you anymore than a 4th round pick for a guy who has never been able to produce at this level?

On the other hand, Army was at the helm when Backes and Brouwer walked in free agency, Elliott left in a trade by his own request, and at least to this point, they have been replaced with nothing more than warm bodies.

Turk Sanderson wrote:Rattie and Fabbri are essentially the same body style....one has a 4 cylinder, one has a Hemi.

Makes you wonder why they spent a #32 pick on a guy who can't skate and doesn't have size then.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote:Rattie and Fabbri are essentially the same body style....one has a 4 cylinder, one has a Hemi.

Makes you wonder why they spent a #32 pick on a guy who can't skate and doesn't have size then.

Potential...they gambled on it and they lost. Fabbri shows us that it ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

barnburner wrote:I can't fault Army for failing to get anything significant in return for Rattie. What nhl gm is going to give you anymore than a 4th round pick for a guy who has never been able to produce at this level?

On the other hand, Army was at the helm when Backes and Brouwer walked in free agency, Elliott left in a trade by his own request, and at least to this point, they have been replaced with nothing more than warm bodies.

While Nail hasn't worked out as a replacement, Perron has been more productive than both Backes and Brouwer for less money and far less term. Still don't blame Army for letting either of them go as both of those deals will look very ugly at some point (possibly very soon for Backes). I think criticism for not bringing in more to replace them up front is fair, but Perron has been a very good signing, and let's not forget that guys like Fabbri are getting more ice time as a result of those departures as well. Willing to wait to see what happens at deadline before passing final judgement.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote:Rattie and Fabbri are essentially the same body style....one has a 4 cylinder, one has a Hemi.

Makes you wonder why they spent a #32 pick on a guy who can't skate and doesn't have size then.

Come on DPW, you've been around long enough to know that once you are past the top 20 picks of a draft that you are basically at a less than 50% chance, and second round and on you are at less than 30% chance of finding a good NHL player (good meaning plays at least 200 games, not even talking about production levels):

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/the-h ... nhl-draft/

"By the time you get down to the Nos. 29 and 30 overall picks, you're looking at less than a 30 percent chance of finding a player that will play at least 200 games in the NHL."

Were there some 'hits' after Rattie? Yes, and we have a couple on our team. 2/3 in the 2nd round picked the same year are playing well for our Blues. I'd call that a successful draft. (not that the following article doesn't include current year games played for all three). Also, Rattie looked as he had room to grow and improve his skating. I'm sure he worked hard, but perhaps he plateaued, we see it all the time in prospects on our team and others. If not, then maybe the 'canes found a steal through the waiver wire. My thought though is that Rattie will always be an AHL/NHL tweener who might have that one year with 10-20 goals, but doesn't have a productive long term career. Hope for his sake I'm wrong.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/1 ... ond-round/

Dave's a mess wrote:

barnburner wrote:I can't fault Army for failing to get anything significant in return for Rattie. What nhl gm is going to give you anymore than a 4th round pick for a guy who has never been able to produce at this level?

On the other hand, Army was at the helm when Backes and Brouwer walked in free agency, Elliott left in a trade by his own request, and at least to this point, they have been replaced with nothing more than warm bodies.

While Nail hasn't worked out as a replacement, Perron has been more productive than both Backes and Brouwer for less money and far less term. Still don't blame Army for letting either of them go as both of those deals will look very ugly at some point (possibly very soon for Backes). I think criticism for not bringing in more to replace them up front is fair, but Perron has been a very good signing, and let's not forget that guys like Fabbri are getting more ice time as a result of those departures as well. Willing to wait to see what happens at deadline before passing final judgement.

Tough to say Perron has been more productive. Brouwer and Backes play a completely different type of game so you can't just say Perron has more points(1 more than Backes, 3 more than Brouwer) therefor is more productive. The Blues have given up a lot more goals this year without Backes who obviously played the role of the two-way shut down forward.

Offensively, sure Perron has replaced one of them and been a good signing. But size, defensively, leadership wise, I don't think he's replaced them, I don't think anyone has.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:

barnburner wrote:I can't fault Army for failing to get anything significant in return for Rattie. What nhl gm is going to give you anymore than a 4th round pick for a guy who has never been able to produce at this level?

On the other hand, Army was at the helm when Backes and Brouwer walked in free agency, Elliott left in a trade by his own request, and at least to this point, they have been replaced with nothing more than warm bodies.

While Nail hasn't worked out as a replacement, Perron has been more productive than both Backes and Brouwer for less money and far less term. Still don't blame Army for letting either of them go as both of those deals will look very ugly at some point (possibly very soon for Backes). I think criticism for not bringing in more to replace them up front is fair, but Perron has been a very good signing, and let's not forget that guys like Fabbri are getting more ice time as a result of those departures as well. Willing to wait to see what happens at deadline before passing final judgement.

Tough to say Perron has been more productive. Brouwer and Backes play a completely different type of game so you can't just say Perron has more points(1 more than Backes, 3 more than Brouwer) therefor is more productive. The Blues have given up a lot more goals this year without Backes who obviously played the role of the two-way shut down forward.

Offensively, sure Perron has replaced one of them and been a good signing. But size, defensively, leadership wise, I don't think he's replaced them, I don't think anyone has.

If there were more guys on the market to replace Backes and Brouwer with, then they wouldn't have gotten the deals that they got. There was no chance that Brouwer was coming back... he lives in Cal-Gary and wanted to play there. If the Blues owned Backes right now, people would be bitching about that gamble, and how bad it looks for him right now. Army isn't perfect, but not overpaying for Backes looks pretty good right now.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:

barnburner wrote:I can't fault Army for failing to get anything significant in return for Rattie. What nhl gm is going to give you anymore than a 4th round pick for a guy who has never been able to produce at this level?

On the other hand, Army was at the helm when Backes and Brouwer walked in free agency, Elliott left in a trade by his own request, and at least to this point, they have been replaced with nothing more than warm bodies.

While Nail hasn't worked out as a replacement, Perron has been more productive than both Backes and Brouwer for less money and far less term. Still don't blame Army for letting either of them go as both of those deals will look very ugly at some point (possibly very soon for Backes). I think criticism for not bringing in more to replace them up front is fair, but Perron has been a very good signing, and let's not forget that guys like Fabbri are getting more ice time as a result of those departures as well. Willing to wait to see what happens at deadline before passing final judgement.

Tough to say Perron has been more productive. Brouwer and Backes play a completely different type of game so you can't just say Perron has more points(1 more than Backes, 3 more than Brouwer) therefor is more productive. The Blues have given up a lot more goals this year without Backes who obviously played the role of the two-way shut down forward.

Offensively, sure Perron has replaced one of them and been a good signing. But size, defensively, leadership wise, I don't think he's replaced them, I don't think anyone has.

Fair. Still think not having Backes' contract on the books makes it worth it though. We'd probably be a bit better off defensively if Steen looked like his normal self, but I'm still hopeful he turns it around.

Turk Sanderson wrote: If there were more guys on the market to replace Backes and Brouwer with, then they wouldn't have gotten the deals that they got. There was no chance that Brouwer was coming back... he lives in Cal-Gary and wanted to play there. If the Blues owned Backes right now, people would be bitching about that gamble, and how bad it looks for him right now. Army isn't perfect, but not overpaying for Backes looks pretty good right now.

It's just an impossible thing to say. Backes has played very good this season, when healthy. Unfortunately, this concussion for him could be a huge problem for himself and the Bruins. No clue what would have happened if he had stayed with the Blues, we're just guessing.

Some GM's can foreshadow the future loss of key players and work to replace them beforehand, rather than after the fact with whatever is left on the market.

This off-season was several years in the making and didn't just happen over-night. Such as trading Oshie with 2 years left on his deal, for a 1 year rental and a goaler that will likely never see the ice in St Louis. Such as bogging your cap space down with contracts like JayBo, Lehtera, Gunnarson.

Dave's a mess wrote: Fair. Still think not having Backes' contract on the books makes it worth it though. We'd probably be a bit better off defensively if Steen looked like his normal self, but I'm still hopeful he turns it around.

I don't have the highest hopes for Steen to turn it around, I wish they had let him test free-agency. Hell, maybe his year would be going better being a contract year and all. The Blues still would have had a fair shot to re-sign him.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote: If there were more guys on the market to replace Backes and Brouwer with, then they wouldn't have gotten the deals that they got. There was no chance that Brouwer was coming back... he lives in Cal-Gary and wanted to play there. If the Blues owned Backes right now, people would be bitching about that gamble, and how bad it looks for him right now. Army isn't perfect, but not overpaying for Backes looks pretty good right now.

It's just an impossible thing to say. Backes has played very good this season, when healthy. Unfortunately, this concussion for him could be a huge problem for himself and the Bruins. No clue what would have happened if he had stayed with the Blues, we're just guessing.

Some GM's can foreshadow the future loss of key players and work to replace them beforehand, rather than after the fact with whatever is left on the market.

This off-season was several years in the making and didn't just happen over-night. Such as trading Oshie with 2 years left on his deal, for a 1 year rental and a goaler that will likely never see the ice in St Louis. Such as bogging your cap space down with contracts like JayBo, Lehtera, Gunnarson.

Backes's concussion history makes him a ticking time-bomb. Steen's is much the same...but he doesn't play as heavy of a game as Backes. This is a salary cap league, and you just don't get to stockpile players like you used to. This team came up just short of the SCF last year, so I give Army plus marks for that, and whatever moves he made to get them there. I give him minus marks for keeping Hitch around this year, and letting him determine the fate of players that may or may not be here next year. Getting back to Rattie, though...he showed me absolutely nothing to make me think that he belonged in the NHL...nothing. They have been trying to hand him a job that he should have had to earn, and he hasn't been able to keep it. They watch him in practice and training every day, and having Fabbri around to compare him with only magnifies his deficiencies. I'm sure that Army is way more disappointed than I am at this point.

Agreed about the salary cap. That's why it's frustrating when you add up how much money guys like Lehtera, Steen, Allen, JayBo, and Gunnar are going to be making for the next few years, all while costing you the chance to re-sign a player like Shattenkirk, who's actually productive.

Army's salary cap management has been pretty bad, imo.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:Agreed about the salary cap. That's why it's frustrating when you add up how much money guys like Lehtera, Steen, Allen, JayBo, and Gunnar are going to be making for the next few years, all while costing you the chance to re-sign a player like Shattenkirk, who's actually productive.

Army's salary cap management has been pretty bad, imo.

When Lehtera came upon the scene he was a pretty awesome player... won most of his face-offs, "eyes in the back of his head" passing, magic with Vova (which he still has)... Extending him was a logical move based on those factors. I don't know what happened to him in regards to face-offs, it seems like anymore the zebras automatically kick him out of the circle before he leans over to take the draw. As far as the rest, he shows flashes of his old self sometimes but concussions have hurt him too. Jaybo never was my kind of d-man, but he's been pretty durable, and would still bring suitors if they wanted to trade him. Gunnar is average, and paid like average so he's no big deal. Steen...I would have sold long ago, and I would have kept the goalie who almost got us to the SCF.... These things I blame Hitch for. Army listens to Hitch, and tries to give him what he feels will make him successful. I'm sure that's why Shatty wasn't dealt last summer, and why he probably wont be dealt at all, unless things really go south in the next couple of months...

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote:Rattie and Fabbri are essentially the same body style....one has a 4 cylinder, one has a Hemi.

Makes you wonder why they spent a #32 pick on a guy who can't skate and doesn't have size then.

Exactly. You gamble on a guy who can only do one thing,in the lower rounds.