Jump to content

cprice12's Photo


Member Since 06 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Jan 29 2016 10:25 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: ROY according to LGW

29 January 2016 - 10:22 AM


At the beginning of the year one of the threads asked who Larkin might be traded for, and I had suggested Parayko as a possibility to consider.  My mindset was both of these guys could become franchise players for their respective positions, and I figured the Wings had more higher-end talent up front in the prospect pool than on defense, so it might be a trade that would make sense down the road.  As far as defensman, he has everything you could want: solid defensively, huge size, booming shot, goal scoring ability, etc etc.  In retrospect I'm glad we have Larkin over him, though, because I was not expecting our offense to be as anemic as it currently is, and Mrazek seems to make up for any lack of a franchise defensman (at least in terms of goals against) at the moment.  Still, if we could somehow swipe Parayko from the Blues I would be willing to move a lot of pieces to make it happen.


I don't like considering anyone "untouchable"...but on the Blues roster, Parayko is about as untouchable as it gets. Even though Larkin is having a very nice season, plus the fact we need a boost on offense, I still wouldn't trade Parayko for him...and it's not a tough decision. That's not a knock on Larkin by any means though. It's just that I think that highly of Parayko.


Parayko reminds me of Pronger in a way, without the mean streak of course.

When he is on the ice, he controls the play. He's so big and technically sound. But he's also really mobile and fast...and he is as offensively gifted a defenseman as you will see at his age and he is a fantastic stickhandler. 


Parayko has been our best all around defenseman. He does it at both ends of the ice. He has been better than Shattenkirk and Pietrangelo...and it's not even close. Assuming he progresses as hopes, he could easily be a Norris caliber guy in a couple years.


I really don't have anything bad to say about the guy. He has been fantastic...but like the OP said, he is a defenseman...plus Larkin, Panarin and some others are having good offensive years (having Kane on your line helps Panarin, but that guy is good anyway), so Pararako likely won't get much consideration for the Calder, even though as of right now, him not being a finalist should be a crime.


Now, if you want a defenseman and want to offer Larkin, maybe we could work out a package deal that includes Pietrangelo? Let's make this happen.  ;)

In Topic: 3/22 GDT : Blues 1 at Red Wings 2 (OT)

25 March 2015 - 06:12 PM

I see no issue with the goal. When a player breaks his stick and doesn't drop it, the refs more often than not warn the player before they call a penalty. The stick break and goal all happened so quick it is irrelevant really. 


You see no issues with the goal?

The refs do not give warnings.  If a player plays a puck with a broken stick, and the ref sees it, it is always a penalty.  ALWAYS.  Even if the player doesn't know the stick is broke.  They may yell at the player to drop his stick immediately (because the player might not know it is broke) and if he doesn't drop it right away, it is a penalty...but there is never a warning given.  

A player can't even skate around with a broken stick. He has to drop it immediately or it is a penalty.

It doesn't matter if the play happened fast or not, or if he was slashed or not (he wasn't), the correct call is still a no goal and a penalty.

In Topic: 3/22 GDT : Blues 1 at Red Wings 2 (OT)

23 March 2015 - 01:21 PM

My thoughts...


I thought it was a pretty entertaining game.  Not as intense as our game against the Jets the other night, but it was a good game.


Blues fans, including myself, are obviously a bit frustrated at the types of goals that went in against us (especially after 5 of the 6 goals the Wild scored on us on Saturday were goofy goals as well).  The shot off of Butler's face that squirts right to Cole who chips it in with a wedge, and of course the goal that shouldn't have counted by Abdelkader in OT.  It really is a joke that that kind of play isn't reviewable.  We discussed this at length last night on our podcast about it being a clear no goal that isn't subjective at all.


I know the league doesn't want the war room getting into the business of calling penalties (they've said as much), which is what would have happened if they were able to review the goal...goal is waived off and Abdelkader goes in the box for playing the puck with a broken stick and it's 3 on 3 with the Blues getting a short PP after that.  But why shouldn't they call penalties on plays like that?  I think especially in situations where a goal is scored, it should be a reviewable play.  But even if you think the war room shouldn't be calling penalties, they could at least say that goals scored with a possible broken stick are reviewable plays, but no penalty will be granted and the faceoff goes down to the other end or something.  Of course, I'm sure you'll get guys bolting to the bench to hide the broken stick after scoring a goal with it...but with all of the cameras out there, they couldn't get away with that very easily.


The sad part is that Toronto did review the goal.  They review every goal to make sure it's legit.  So they very much indeed saw that the goal shouldn't have counted...but they couldn't say anything about it.

That's just wrong.

It might be a while before you see a goal like that again...they aren't common.  But it wouldn't hurt to have that rule in the rulebook just in case.  The NHL doesn't want the Stanley Cup decided on another goal that shouldn't have counted.


I think you guys can understand that we feel we deserved a better fate in this game.  Just got a bit unlucky on the first goal, and then flat out hosed on the 2nd goal.


But hey, maybe we can get some revenge when we meet the Wings in the finals.  I know that I speak for just about every Blues fan when I say that I would LOVE to meet the Wings in the finals. (but let's be honest...we'd love for the Blues to meet anyone in the finals)


Good game

Good game

Good game

Good game

F*ck you

Good game

Good game