One subject addressed by the GMs was the idea of mandating the usage of visors on helmets (by way of grandfathering; new players would have no choice but to wear them, but current players would still have the right to choose). The NHL Player’s Association struck down such a movement in 2009, but the vast majority of players coming into the league wear them. The NHLPA plans on polling the players again during the summer, and some feel that the consensus may have shifted enough to approve the plan.

Many players have been injured by high sticks and pucks; the most recent example was that of Marc Staal, who was struck in the eye with a puck. Staal was not wearing a visor, but his two brothers have since stated that they will now do so. Visors reduce (but do not eliminate) these injuries. Wearing a visor makes sense. But those who oppose the idea of mandating them tend to ask the question: why not allow grown men make their own decisions and take responsibility for them? These are adults; they are capable of weighing pros and cons. Why must their responsibility be taken from them? The slippery slope argument is often maligned, but it can be applied here. At what point do we allow adults to handle themselves?

Hybrid icing is another issue that concerns player safety. In the current system, players race to the puck in a dead heat straight at the boards. This has led to a few scenarios in which players fall or are pushed into the boards at high speeds causing injury. In the worst case, a Swiss player was paralyzed after an icing incident. Support has grown for hybrid icing, a system in which the referees determine whether or not to blow the play dead if they feel that the defending player will touch the puck first (the referee makes this decision based primarily on the players’ respective positions when reaching the zone’s face-off dot.) If the referee feels that it will be either player that will touch the puck, he must blow the whistle. The only scenario in which icing is waved off is if the referee feels the attacking player will certainly reach the puck first.

The most significant difference between the current and proposed systems is that, as opposed to the players actually arriving at and touching the puck, the referee now must decide which player he feels will touch it first (icing would be called if the players are equally likely to get to the puck first). While this will prevent a few injuries, there is an obvious problem: more gray area and speculation for referees. A point must be made: this is an athletic competition. It may sound callous, but injuries are always a risk of sports. This will never change (unless the very definition of athletic competition is altered). What this rule would do would be to place more burden onto hockey’s referees, and as the game stands today, that is exactly the change we need the least. Already are games riddled with arbitrary penalties; it seems that blatant infractions are ignored just as often as negligible or justifiable actions are penalized. Introducing even more opportunities for speculation is a recipe for more discontent with the league’s already heavily maligned officiating.

One can certainly see the reasoning behind mandating hybrid icing: increased safety. In the face of this argument, almost no rebuttal can stand. Those who argue against these rule changes could be branded insensitive to the well-being of players. But is this reasonable? The argument could be applied to so many aspects of the sport. It is used in the argument to ban fighting (an issue that will certainly become more polarizing in the future).  How many players are injured by the current icing format? This scenario would not be ideal for the league’s situation- the refereeing is already horribly inconsistent. If they must change icing, it should be towards a simple no-touch system, however this would also have negative effects.

In either case, these decisions must be made with proper reasoning; they should not be made for the sole purpose of avoiding alarmist, reactionary publicity. It is important to remember that injuries are always a risk in sports, and that these players are grown men. They must be given the opportunity to make their own decisions. They choose to play the game and they understand the risks. They should be treated as adults.

-Sam Lakey

Even if the Blues continue to play as well as they have recently, it certainly could hardly hurt to add a piece. If there is any area of the team that needs strengthening, it is certainly the defense. The forwards have scored plenty of goals for the most part this season (with the exception of their poorest stretches), and if Alex Steen and Andy McDonald stay healthy, the attack should not be a problem. On the other hand, the defense is quite thin. Wade Redden has not been good enough; he has not utilized his main asset, experience, to an adequate extent. Ian Cole has been consistently unreliable as well. Kevin Shattenkirk scores many points, but makes mistakes and costly decisions in the defensive zone far too frequently. Kris Russell has not played as well as he did last year (although he is improving as the season progresses). Even Alex Pietrangelo has played sub-par defense at certain points. If the Blues make a move, it must be for a large, experienced, consistent defenseman who is reliable in his own zone. Somebody of the ilk of Roman Polak (who has, for the most part, been his usual rock-solid self) to pair with Pietrangelo or Shattenkirk would be ideal.

But who can be spared? Certain names circulate more than others. The player that inspires the most discussion seems, at this moment, to be the surging Chris Stewart. Stewart, recently named the NHL’s number one star of the week, has had perhaps the best stretch of his Blues career, including scoring a splendid, composed overtime goal against the Anaheim Ducks. Some suggest his value will never be higher, and this is probably true, but to trade him would be foolish. Stewart has been the Blues’ best forward this season; his speed and effort have been superb, and his stickhandling and finishing have been masterful. He was given a one-year contract to prove himself, and thus far, he has passed the test. To trade him would most likely (depending on the return, of course) be foolish, and the Blues would lose a fantastic forward with much career upside.

Another name being raised is David Perron‘s. Perron has been adequate this year, but many view him as perhaps the Blues’ most technically skilled player. He can be both mesmerizing and frustrating, and has looked out of sorts during stretches of this season. But his skill is certainly there. The question is, is he valued high enough? A skilled player like Perron has highlight-reel talent, but has his output matched his potential? If the return for Perron is high enough, trading him could be prudent, but that criterion must be met. There is no doubt that, if traded, Perron has the potential to be a fantastic player for another team; if he is included in a trade offer, the Blues will have a tough decision to make.

Other players rumored to be on the block include Brian Elliott and Patrik Berglund. Elliott’s situation shows how tenuous a professional hockey goalie’s career can be. After leading the league in save percentage (in fact, setting a record) and goals-against average last season, he has fell from grace, finding himself third choice behind the surprising Jake Allen and Jaroslav Halak. Part of his lack of success this year can certainly be attributed to the defense’s disappointing performance, but he has certainly been disappointing nevertheless. If a team needs a goalie, he could certainly be included in an offer; the question, again, is what return will he command? Will last year’s success outweigh his lack thereof this season? Berglund has had his best year yet, but his contract will expire at the end of the season, and some (including Jeremy Rutherford) have suggested that the Blues may have to make a decision between Berglund and Stewart. This means one of them could go at the deadline this year, and with Stewart’s success, Berglund may be a more likely candidate.

In the end, there is a reason Doug Armstrong is the team’s GM; he has been a part of several successful decisions made by the Blues administration in recent years. The most notable one was the trade with Colorado that sent former first-overall pick Erik Johnson to the Avalanche and brought the aforementioned Stewart and Shattenkirk. The trade was completely unexpected by many, but turned out to be a success. Mr. Armostrong will undoubtedly be on the lookout for a similar situation; in the meantime, Blues fans will wait with anticipation to see what the Blues may choose to do.

-Sam Lakey