JR's writing is worse at the Athletic than it was when he was with the Post-Dispatch. It looks like someone trying to write as a hockey insider, but without the actual background knowledge. He occasionally produces puff pieces that I enjoy, my favorite being the one with Blais' draft story.
But he has single-handedly butchered the Tarasenko reporting. This thing with Perron is more of the same.
Perron is probably my favorite Blues player of all time, and I was very sad to see him leave. But I also wasn't terribly surprised at it, because looking at the Cap situation and knowing what will be required next year to re-sign RFAs, and the LHD question, I didn't see how a fair contract for him really fit. Apparently, it didn't.
Armstrong didn't do anything malicious or unprofessional with Perron, from the facts that have been relayed. He certainly didn't do anything to string him along and cause him to pass up a better offer, which was self-evident when he signed the Detroit deal. JR's reporting of the situation has distorted things quite a bit.
I think Armstrong has made his bed to some degree with the way he handles media. He doesn't leak information and doesn't tolerate leaks. There have been limited times when he came out afterward and gave a public account of how a negotiation went, but I've never seen him allow public comments about a player contract negotiation while its still ongoing. So JR doesn't have "sources" in the Blues front office he can anonymously quote the way he likes to do.
I thought Emily Kaplan did an expert job as a traveling national reporter when she gave her account of an interview with Armstrong during a game where she was the sideline commentator during the season. She related the Tarasenko situation, and then asked Armstrong about it. I can't remember the exact wording, but she said something like, "I asked Doug Armstrong if Tarasenko was still on the market as a trade asset, and he would not comment. I think that tells the story." She was able to do her job without having a cooperative insider, because she asked questions and told us how they responded. Its a hell of a lot better than JR's pattern of giving people a platform for their agendas and crediting them as "anonymous sources". When you allow someone to be an anonymous source, there has to be a credible reason. They're a whistle-blower who is in danger, or they aren't authorized to pass on information their superiors don't want out, or etc. Its not just because its inconvenient for a player's agent to go on record. Allowing that gives people a chance to put out misinformation with no accountability, and that's exactly what has happened multiple times in his columns.
The Athletic has some excellent hockey journalists, and others that are just mediocre. JR seems like a nice guy, but he's one of the worst hockey people they have on staff. He's not a good journalist, and he's not an expert on hockey. You really need to be at least one of those things to do a decent job in the field.
