That think looks like a putrid European jersey. Might as well put all the sponsors on there too!
2020-2021 St. Louis Blues: Well, ****.
- Thread starter EastonBlues22
- Start date
- Status
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Reality Czech
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 5,840
- 9,431
I prefer one of these 2 than f***ing red. Blech.
That yellow jersey is gorgeous but those whites are clean af. I've always liked the arch logo. I would buy one of each, Thank you.
That yellow jersey is gorgeous but those whites are clean af. I've always liked the arch logo. I would buy one of each, Thank you.
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Yellow yes, white not so much. I don't like the arch logo. But, that's just my opinion. Both are better than that red monstrosity.
I really like the red jerseys. Pretty bold color and layout.
Just not for the Blues. Redwing, Sens and Florida. Sure, but Blues no.
it would be like Ohio State having a Blue or yellow Jersey.
Why not go with a Camo type jersey.
Just not for the Blues. Redwing, Sens and Florida. Sure, but Blues no.
it would be like Ohio State having a Blue or yellow Jersey.
Why not go with a Camo type jersey.
Vollie, I know you’re new here. I think you are circumventing the site rules about posting trademarked material / stuff from behind a paywall. I’m not here to play moderator, but you may want to check those rules before you run afoul of them. Maybe the rules have relaxed. If so apologies and I’ll shut up now.
This is intended as a friendly mention to help you keep this discussion going without getting anything deleted or dinged yourself.
Basically you can quote limited sections and need to provide analysis. I think they say 20 lines or less. Probably a lot is let slide, but when it’s paywall stuff the mods get more picky.
This is intended as a friendly mention to help you keep this discussion going without getting anything deleted or dinged yourself.
Basically you can quote limited sections and need to provide analysis. I think they say 20 lines or less. Probably a lot is let slide, but when it’s paywall stuff the mods get more picky.
Last edited:
I’m going to respond here to what Vollie brought up regarding Dom’s ranking from the fan survey of front offices. 6th place is pretty respectable. Most teams at the top have fans you rank things higher than the league-wide fans.
I think the league-wide rating of Cap Management is off, and is lower than deserved out of ignorance. We continue to see trade proposals from people who assume the Blues need to shed salary and are ignorant of Steen’s situation or factoring in other LTIR considerations, or Dunn’s lack of arbitration status.
You can debate the Faulk contract, but other than that there aren’t albatross contracts that cloud the future flexibility. Faulk is just a situation where the front office appear to value the player a lot more than public perception. We’ll see if Faulk changes any opinions with his play as the contract goes along. But I remember a lot of hand-wringing over having to pay assets to move Allen. Armstrong was vindicated in the sense that he recouped a decent pick for Allen and didn’t have to give anything.
The team finished first in the conference without the presence of their best goal scorer almost all year. I think that shows the Stanley Cup run wasn’t some fluky event. I think Armstrong has made some misjudgments, but he deserves more credit for assembling a roster that could do that last season.
I think the league-wide rating of Cap Management is off, and is lower than deserved out of ignorance. We continue to see trade proposals from people who assume the Blues need to shed salary and are ignorant of Steen’s situation or factoring in other LTIR considerations, or Dunn’s lack of arbitration status.
You can debate the Faulk contract, but other than that there aren’t albatross contracts that cloud the future flexibility. Faulk is just a situation where the front office appear to value the player a lot more than public perception. We’ll see if Faulk changes any opinions with his play as the contract goes along. But I remember a lot of hand-wringing over having to pay assets to move Allen. Armstrong was vindicated in the sense that he recouped a decent pick for Allen and didn’t have to give anything.
The team finished first in the conference without the presence of their best goal scorer almost all year. I think that shows the Stanley Cup run wasn’t some fluky event. I think Armstrong has made some misjudgments, but he deserves more credit for assembling a roster that could do that last season.
The rankings from the fan survey of the front offices, Me personally I think with the Blues being at 6 is a little high I think they should be a little bit lower. I see a lot of our fans are giving a long leash to Army based on the cup win being fairly fresh, As he's the only GM to bring one to STL, Which is fine I don't disagree with that, But what I disagree with is every move DA has made since winning the cup has been poor. The Faulk trade, Even though I didn't mind the trade but I thought it was totally unnecessary and the extension seconds later was even more so unnecessary. The Scandella extension it could be good or it could be bad, I'll wait and reserve my judgement on that one. The Krug contract could end up being just as bad as Faulk's as neither are top pairing defensemen and very one dimensional. Army failed to see the value in Pietrangelo and slapped him in the face. DA made the Blues worse and for a team that is in win now mode with a window open for the next 5 years DA sure closed it in a hurry.
I tend to disagree with you, but that's what's so great about this country, we all have free opinions. I think [hope] when all is said and done, Faulk and Krug, with Parayko, will lead this defense just fine. For me, Petro' s money and especially the term are way to much. I don't begrudge his agent or him asking for the moon, but I thought they were absolutely out of touch and reality when the pandemic hit.. As far as I'm concerned, Army played it right and stuck to his guns. Petro's deal is going to be a back breaker in a few years. I really don't think Vegas realizes Petro is not the high-end D they think he is. I'm not saying he is not good but he is no Pronger.
There is a world of difference between the value of the Krug deal vs the Faulk deal, at least in terms of Dom’s projections. He has Faulk as one of the worst contracts in the league. However, it should be noted that the model is using data generated when Faulk had suboptimal (to put it mildly) usage last season. There is every reason to expect him to get offensive opportunities that had previously been going to Pietro. Faulk’s production should improve, making the contract value calculation look better.
As for Krug, Dom’s model actually likes that contract a LOT more than Pietro’s deal. Dom puts Pietro to statistically be worth 2.0 excess wins/season, market value 8.7M / year with a total contract value surplus of -0.6M. It’s not terrible, and he projects Pietro VERY favorably over the life of the contract. We’ve seen some guys like Karlsson, Subban and Doughty with pretty dramatic declines. He’s projecting against that.
In contrast his model projects Krug to be worth 1.9 excess wins/year, market value 8.5M / year and excess value over the life of the contract of +14.1M. Some will argue that the model inflates Krug’s contribution due to playing with guys like Pasternak and the rest of the Bruins PP. But these are values based on a mathematical model, not opinion.
Lumping Krug with Faulk is lazy, and isn’t supported by the data. I also don’t get criticizing every signing if the player isn’t a top pairing player. You need a full defense, with 7 guys on the roster. Parayko is the 1D now. You can’t make players to order, and have to get guys that actually exist, that are on the market.
I find it fascinating that Dom’s model (cited by Vollie) values Krug and Pietro fairly similarly in their contribution to overall wins. It makes Krug’s contract look pretty nice. If you take the savings from Pietro and invest in another player who contributes to wins over replacement, you may end up better off than if you kept Pietro. (Speaking purely in terms of the model here.) At least with Dom’s model, Armstrong’s approach to Pietro is defensible and smarter than what Vegas did. We are talking about the Blues, but I noticed that Vegas didn’t really show up in the teams that had improved the most. I think they lost too much to fit the salary.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,058
- 8,667
There is obviously some more nuance to the discussion, but the evaluation basically breaks down to this:
1. Parayko/Krug/Faulk vs.
2. Petro/Parayko/Edmundson
I don't think you can argue that we're better off with #1, I just think that the difference between the two is far smaller than many on here believe. This is not a change that takes you from a contender to a bottom feeder, but only time will tell if it takes us from contender to pretender.
Even though our right side is undeniably weaker, I'm interested to see if the balance created by improving the overall quality of the left side of the defense has enough benefit to close a bit of the overall talent gap.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,058
- 8,667
This particular comment gets at the heart of my frustration over how some fans and posters are framing the Faulk extension. You would think by some of the comments that we paid for a top pairing guy and are getting a bottom pairing/AHL tweener for that money. He is NOT getting paid top pairing money, he's just in the top half of what you would pay a second pairing guy and that fine if he plays that way. He really didn't last season, but I would like to see how he plays on the proper side of the ice in a defined role with a partner that compliments his playing style before I start wishing we could chuck that contract onto a raging bonfire.
Majorityof1
Registered User
He's the 22nd highest paid defenseman in the league by AAV. Top 30 equates to low-end #1D. Now there are bargain contracts signed a few years ago and ELCs, so maybe you need to pay that much for a middle of the pack #2 guy. But it is clearly top pairing money given how much other D are getting paid. BUT its not EVEN THAT....
He didn't produce like a 2nd pairing guy last season, even when being used properly. The only reason he ever really produced was PP time. But its not EVEN THAT...
We flat out didn't need him. The problem with this contract is that we had 2 far superior top 4 RHD. You say it yourself, this contract was bad because he wasn't used properly. Take it one more step, he wasn't used properly because we couldn't use him properly without misusing our best 2 D. You do not pay a guy top pair money, or even middle 2nd pair money when you don't need a 2nd pair guy.
This is especially the case, when you could use that money elsewhere (like on the LHD side, re-signing Petro or bolster our offense). Even now, without Petro and with Krug to balance the sides, its still a contract we don't need because we have too many PP only guys who need sheltering in Dunn and Krug. One is better and the other is cheaper with more upside. Faulk's money could be better used on someone in free agency than on Faulk, not even counting having used it to keep Pietrangelo. So the contract was unnecessary then and problematic now, even if he lives up to his top-end potential of a PP-dependent middle pairing offensive dman.
There's no question that Faulk will be better now that he is going be on his proper side but that where it ends for me. I've said it before Faulk would have to play out of his f***ing mind to justify his contract which isn't going to happen. I didn't like the extension then, and I certainly don't like it now. Some people I've seen are hoping he'll magically overnight return to form from 5 years ago, Yeah right!!! Just like I said at the beginning, Yes he will be better but not worth the dollars + term and certainly wasn't needed.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,058
- 8,667
Even when used properly? That pretty much never happened at all last year.
We didn't need him... until we did. We had 2 superior RHD... until we didn't. If there is one thing we have learned is that maybe his acquisition was related to a belief we weren't going to be able to meet Petro's demands after all.
When are we going to end this denial? We didn't let Petro walk because we couldn't afford him. We let him walk because he was asking for money and/or contract terms we were unwilling to give him. It had nothing...zero...NADA...to do with Faulk's contract blocking cap space.
Thank you. It’s intellectually dishonest to repeat the fallacy that Faulk’s contract stood in Pietro’s way. The team demonstrably paid all 3 of Pietro, Parayko and Faulk last year. They had the cap space to accommodate the contract Vegas just gave Pietro. The front office simply drew a line based on his value, which included limits on items like the clauses and bonuses. But it was a choice of where that line existed of where the contract would outweigh his benefit. We have been told they offered him 8x8. How did Faulk’s contract keep them from offering that? It didn’t.
I can respect the argument that Armstrong was simply wrong, and that Pietro’s value was enough that the higher contract and bonuses was justified. But that is much different than pretending he’d somehow handcuffed himself with Faulk. At worst Faulk would have been redundant and overpaid, but he still fit. And it’s not like there wouldn’t have been avenues to address moving Faulk if it came to that AFTER signing Pietro. But it would have been a move for the sake of roster balance, not cap compliance.
Why won’t Faulk just have to play like a 6.5M player? Can’t he just earn his contract with production commensurate with what he’s paid? I don’t see how holding him to the impossible standard you describe is remotely reasonable.
These kinds of statements vary significantly depending on when in the course of the contract you take that comparison. Flat cap notwithstanding, Faulk’s position among highest paid defenders is only going to recede as the years go along. If you made the list in 4 years, I bet he’ll be squarely in the 2nd pairing numbers. And as you say, ELC guys need to be acknowledged.
If he were a free agent this offseason, he’d have received less. But this contract was pre-pandemic.
I don’t think any of us are arguing that he isn’t overpaid, and potentially by a lot if we don’t see better production going forward. But he wasn’t signed to a contract that implies he’s a Pietro replacement. On the Blues, his contract says 2/3 defender, especially when Parayko gets his comparable age contract.
67Blues
Got it for Bobby
Not many teams have the luxury of having two #1 RHD on the roster as the Blues have enjoyed for the last few years. Now we'll be like a lot of other teams in respect to having just one #1D.
Pietrangelo is a top 5 defenseman and when you look at contracts of other top 5 defenseman they have either have a NMC or bonuses or sometimes a combination of both. Pietrangelo wanted both and that is what you pay to keep your captain and a #1 top 5 defenseman and the reason we let Petro walk was Armstrong failed in seeing Petro's value to the team. The Blues are worse team because of it.
In 2014-15 with the Hurricanes Faulk had 49 points and every season since then he barely even got to 40pts, He just ins't a good player I just don't see him returning to his Carolina days and he is never going to live up to that contract. That trade was totally unnecessary. It just burns me.
Regardless, I'm a Blues fan and I'm not drinking the kool aid and thinking everything is sunshine and rainbows like some other's on here. I'm honest and I don't like the direction the Blues are going in and it's a problem. They aren't good enough to win and I don't see them winning anytime in the future. DA had a great team that were true contenders he totally f***ed up and spat in Petro's face in the process now they have nothing. This is just the beginning of Armstrong doing what he did in Dallas.
- Status
