Toggle sidebar

2021-2022 S Blues Multi-Purpose Thread Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
bleedblue1223 said:
The only move we could've made, would've been trading for Toews instead of Colorado. Would be interesting to know if we were in on that or if we made an offer to the Islanders. I don't really blame him for Scandella, even though I don't think any of us liked the term when that deal was made. Toews instead of Krug is the easy revisionist what if scenario.

Trading for Nate Schmidt when Vancouver got him would probably be another that would've been better than Krug.
Click to expand...
That is not the only different thing that could have happened with the defense.

"I couldn't sign Player X because I didn't want to cripple my team with a bad contract I couldn't move so I signed the far, far inferior Player Y who I also can't move and ever since the day I did this my team hasn't been a legitimate contender."
 
Last I remember hearing Leivo's name, he was being touted by Maple Leafs fans as in important piece for their future. That was several years ago. The guy can score, there's no doubt about that. I'm wondering, what's wrong with the rest of his game that he's been a non-factor in the NHL for so long?
 
PocketNines said:
That is not the only different thing that could have happened with the defense.

"I couldn't sign Player X because I didn't want to cripple my team with a bad contract I couldn't move so I signed the far, far inferior Player Y who I also can't move and ever since the day I did this my team hasn't been a legitimate contender."
Click to expand...
Petro was gone the day we acquired Faulk though. If we want to go back to that point, as the first mistake, then I'd have more of an issue since the NMC is a clear deal-breaker for Army and I think it's safe to assume that he would've known Petro's camp had that as a must have prior to acquiring Faulk.

Now when we acquired Krug, we did have to acquire someone. Trading for Toews or Schmidt would've been a much better option, and Army's preference for a PP ace is not going to stand the test of time. It's much harder to find a proper top 4 that can handle all situations than it is to simply find a good PP QB. Even if we didn't like Dunn long-term, we could've found a different PP QB at a cheaper rate that could be sheltered on a 3rd pair.
 
Snubbed4Vezina said:
Last I remember hearing Leivo's name, he was being touted by Maple Leafs fans as in important piece for their future. That was several years ago. The guy can score, there's no doubt about that. I'm wondering, what's wrong with the rest of his game that he's been a non-factor in the NHL for so long?
Click to expand...
IIRC while in Vancouver he had a nasty injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snubbed4Vezina
Louie the Blue said:
The cap being flat isn’t a situation he created.
Click to expand...
P9 is talking about getting Krug who he should've known was someone that would need sheltering and couldn't handle a typical top 4 role. Getting some sort of all-situations guy like Toews or Schmidt, and we really don't have a massive issue on the back-end.
 
bleedblue1223 said:
Petro was gone the day we acquired Faulk though. If we want to go back to that point, as the first mistake, then I'd have more of an issue since the NMC is a clear deal-breaker for Army and I think it's safe to assume that he would've known Petro's camp had that as a must have prior to acquiring Faulk.

Now when we acquired Krug, we did have to acquire someone. Trading for Toews or Schmidt would've been a much better option, and Army's preference for a PP ace is not going to stand the test of time. It's much harder to find a proper top 4 that can handle all situations than it is to simply find a good PP QB. Even if we didn't like Dunn long-term, we could've found a different PP QB at a cheaper rate that could be sheltered on a 3rd pair.
Click to expand...
I am saying that the idea itself of Armstrong knowing Pietrangelo "was gone" because of something he, Armstrong, had decided that was a sacred principle inside of himself, is not something I have ever accepted as legitimate. Because it is not. So while it's part of the analysis of "what thus proceeded as a result" I have never accepted that it needed to happen. Now, the way Armstrong can vindicate the all-in bet he made over this principle is by overcoming the crippling loss of the team's support beam by building a contender. So far, so fail.
 
bleedblue1223 said:
P9 is talking about getting Krug who he should've known was someone that would need sheltering and couldn't handle a typical top 4 role. Getting some sort of all-situations guy like Toews or Schmidt, and we really don't have a massive issue on the back-end.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't believe Krug's contract in itself is a hinderance.

The issue is more so regarding the flat cap. Krug's really good at what he does and there weren't any alternatives that would have cost less assets that were available then (Toews and Schmidt would have required draft capital in additional to $).

I don't think the issue with defense has anything to do with Krug. It has more to do with, if we're being very honest, Edmundson's development being stagnated here as well a failure to have any D in the horizon that are promising short of Perunovich that can make a contribution at a low cost which is exacerbated by a flat cap. Even then, it's debatable if Perunovich can do that given his liability on defense.

The top 4 is fine individually, but collectively it's weird given the dynamic with Krug.


bleedblue1223 said:
Petro was gone the day we acquired Faulk though. If we want to go back to that point, as the first mistake, then I'd have more of an issue since the NMC is a clear deal-breaker for Army and I think it's safe to assume that he would've known Petro's camp had that as a must have prior to acquiring Faulk.

Now when we acquired Krug, we did have to acquire someone. Trading for Toews or Schmidt would've been a much better option, and Army's preference for a PP ace is not going to stand the test of time. It's much harder to find a proper top 4 that can handle all situations than it is to simply find a good PP QB. Even if we didn't like Dunn long-term, we could've found a different PP QB at a cheaper rate that could be sheltered on a 3rd pair.
Click to expand...
The Blues could have afforded Pietrangelo but Armstrong being hell-bent on not offering a NMC is what nuked that from happening.

Faulk was acquired independently of Pietrangelo.

PocketNines said:
I am saying that the idea itself of Armstrong knowing Pietrangelo "was gone" because of something he, Armstrong, had decided that was a sacred principle inside of himself, is not something I have ever accepted as legitimate. Because it is not. So while it's part of the analysis of "what thus proceeded as a result" I have never accepted that it needed to happen. Now, the way Armstrong can vindicate the all-in bet he made over this principle is by overcoming the crippling loss of the team's support beam by building a contender. So far, so fail.
Click to expand...
How has he failed after Pietrangelo unless you believe the team not winning a Cup every year is failure?

2020-2021 the team's flaws were exacerbated by the second most man games lost to injury in the league.

This year they went toe-to-toe with Avalanche and did as well as anyone did vs them in the POs including Tampa. Binnington + Krug takes the series to 7 at least. This team has a very promising forward group even without Perron but how they performed in the POs wasn't acceptable for like half of the top 9.

The defense did fine given how bad the forwards played.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArenaRat
I still have this weird gut feeling that Faulk was brought in to replace Parayko if he decided he'd rather go home to Edmonton, but Pietrangelo left before that was even an option.
 
At a total loss for words after watching this. As a native St. Louisan, Perron choosing to make his way back here over the course of his career twice and his interview this morning, this just doesn't make sense to me. Armstrong has tarnished his reputation. Total asshole.

 
WeWentBlues said:
At a total loss for words after watching this. As a native St. Louisan, Perron choosing to make his way back here over the course of his career twice and his interview this morning, this just doesn't make sense to me. Armstrong has tarnished his reputation. Total asshole.

Click to expand...

Armstrong’s decision is consistent with what he’s done since he’s been here.

Not sure why anyone’s now shocked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
WeWentBlues said:
At a total loss for words after watching this. As a native St. Louisan, Perron choosing to make his way back here over the course of his career twice and his interview this morning, this just doesn't make sense to me. Armstrong has tarnished his reputation. Total asshole.

Click to expand...

Where can I find this interview referenced here?
 
Vladys Gumption said:
View attachment 569119
Click to expand...
Disgusting

F! DA. Went from high on my list to low asshole status. MFer.

Snubbed4Vezina said:
The players realize that this is a business and sometimes tough decisions have to be made to make the team better 2-3 years down the line.
Click to expand...
Then DA needed to talk to Perron about this and be very clear.

DA is just a cold ruthless lawyer. F him.

I watch because I love the team and it's players, not because DA is a ruthless GM.
 
Louie the Blue said:
He let Backes and Pietrangelo walk as well as traded Berglund when his agent didn’t submit his list for teams for his NTC…
Click to expand...

There is a difference. Backes played a style that doesn't age well at all and wanted 5 years @ $6M per year. Perron wanted 2 years @ $4.75M, and plays a style that will age better. Pietrangelo wanted cap breaking money and 7-8 years. Big differences.

It's not a loyalty issue, its a roster construction issue. Perron at $4.75 for 2 years is tremendous cap value. He is a goal scorer and near point per game. I don't think he'll regress much due to his style. That is extremely valuable on a team that needs to rely on depth due to lack of game breaking talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STL fan in MN, Vladys Gumption and ArenaRat
Majorityof1 said:
There is a difference. Backes played a style that doesn't age well at all and wanted 5 years @ $6M per year. Perron wanted 2 years @ $4.75M, and plays a style that will age better. Pietrangelo wanted cap breaking money and 7-8 years. Big differences.
Click to expand...
I would’ve paid Perron what he wanted but given Armstrong’s past moves I can’t see why this is viewed as shocking.

Additionally, Blues were willing to meet Pietrangelo on his salary demands or come close to it. Issue was NMC.

IMO, the decision on Backes was probably the most cut throat (and right) one. The other 2 are hard to swallow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArenaRat
Majorityof1 said:
There is a difference. Backes played a style that doesn't age well at all and wanted 5 years @ $6M per year. Perron wanted 2 years @ $4.75M, and plays a style that will age better. Pietrangelo wanted cap breaking money and 7-8 years. Big differences.
Click to expand...
I honestly think Perron jumped the gun way to early in signing with Detroit. He could’ve made more if he waited after Gaudreau signed. I could e see a team like the islanders or devils giving him a bigger contract than the one he signed
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArenaRat and BlueDream
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom