Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,598
- 14,298
I don't think that is remotely what is going on in that article and I'm not a fan of JR's work.
2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread
- Thread starter simon IC
- Start date
- Status
ChicagoBlues
Terraformers
- Oct 24, 2006
- 15,930
- 6,727
You’re entitled to your view. Agree to disagree.
Then again, I didn’t read the entire article.
The Blues are in that middle ground where you’re not sure whether to root for wins or losses. I’ve decided to root for wins and enjoy the players I follow fighting their way out of mediocrity (or below) to try and make this season mean something. Chances are they’ll ‘succeed’ in turning this season into a playoff spot and get a rough matchup in the 1st round, probably bow out. But rather than be disappointed if they miss a lottery pick, I’m just going to enjoy the ride and hope they catch lightning in a bottle somehow, though i know thats unlikely.
Regarding Lindholm, I remember reading somewhere that one major reason he chose Boston (or the East coast) was because it's easier for his family and friends to travel there from Sweden.
When he played in Anaheim he rarely got any visitors from over seas, and wanted a much better situation going forward.
That was probably not the only reason Blues missed out on him (nmc), but I would say that was a significant reason none the less.
When he played in Anaheim he rarely got any visitors from over seas, and wanted a much better situation going forward.
That was probably not the only reason Blues missed out on him (nmc), but I would say that was a significant reason none the less.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,231
- 8,839
My thoughts to this point have been that'll I embrace them going either way in the standings. But I've leaned more toward hoping they make the playoffs in any form, because I haven't really bought into believing we'd be bad enough to win the draft lottery or finish in much better drafting position missing the playoffs than we would with a first or second round exit.
Edit: I do fully support the Tank Train GDT theme that @Linkens Mastery has come up with!
Last edited:
FWIW, I don't support the tank idea. In fact, you can put me in the "make the playoffs at all costs" camp. I am not sure the franchise could support a full, long rebuild. We need the playoff revenue and we need to maintain fan interest.
ChicagoBlues
Terraformers
- Oct 24, 2006
- 15,930
- 6,727
ChicagoBlues
Terraformers
- Oct 24, 2006
- 15,930
- 6,727
It's funny that most of this tank talk is really just dark sarcasm to deal with this strangest of starts to a season. I've been having fun with the Blues' suckitude. If they win a buncha games and make the playoffs....whatever...that's cool.
I just hope our playoff run is without ROR , Tarasenko and, possibly, Barbashev.
A big ask, I know, but that's what I want. Trade a few guys and still make the playoffs.
Simon's point about money is perfect.
- Feb 12, 2008
- 19,964
- 9,501
If we let ROR, Tarasenko and Barbs walk for free, We are going to be a bubble team for many years.
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
- Feb 21, 2006
- 4,285
- 1,861
Can we stop with this. Stillman’s group paid $180 million for the team. They were just valued at $880 million. Nashville was just sold for $800 million.
But that’s not money in their pocket - that’s money that may potentially be realized or lost at any time. I think the worth is irrelevant.
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
- Feb 21, 2006
- 4,285
- 1,861
No shit. You don’t buy a small, mid-market sports franchise to generate significant operating income/cash flow. You buy it for the asset to appreciate significantly over time. And it’s become one of the safest investments out there for the high net worth among us.
Right - I don’t understand your rebuttal. That doesn’t address the issue. The owners need cash flow to support the operations, and they generate a significant amount from playoff revenue. An investment is not cash flow until it’s sold. Do you spend like crazy and not rely on your income because your home’s value increased?
Moose and Squirrel
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2021
- 3,685
- 2,703
couldn't agree more
and , imo, this ownership group does not have 'tank/rebuild' in their minds at all. just the opposite. that may not make some folks here happy, but that's the way it is
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
I'm not for a tank as much as I am a 2017-esque season in which Shattenkirk was traded.
However, the ownership group can afford a year or 2 without PO revenue and as long as the Taylor family is invested, I don't think there should much concern about the team's financial health.
I think making moves to make the POs at all costs will do more long-term damage to the team than positive results.
542365
2018-19 Cup Champs!
- Mar 22, 2012
- 22,552
- 9,010
Our contracts make it nearly impossible to fully rebuild, but the best course of action is unquestionably to move the UFAs at the deadline regardless playoff position. This team is not seriously competing for a Cup and it would be foolish to miss out on a good return for the UFAs and high pick in a great draft just for a couple of home playoff game revenue.
I am for balancing out long and short term goals. Armstrong has done this in the past also.
I think this team has a month to prove they can complete and make some noise in the playoffs, if not, I think you will see Armstrong make a multiple moves. If this team does takes off, I still think you will see him pull a Stas or Shatty and trade Tarasenko at minimum.
To me this isn't a blow it up and rebuild vs. compete. I think you can do both. We can Retool with UFAs. Add some solid 2nd line players and improve the 3rd line via free agency. And build some solid prospects with 2 first rounds in the draft.
I think this team has a month to prove they can complete and make some noise in the playoffs, if not, I think you will see Armstrong make a multiple moves. If this team does takes off, I still think you will see him pull a Stas or Shatty and trade Tarasenko at minimum.
To me this isn't a blow it up and rebuild vs. compete. I think you can do both. We can Retool with UFAs. Add some solid 2nd line players and improve the 3rd line via free agency. And build some solid prospects with 2 first rounds in the draft.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,949
- 16,405
Wasn't sure if it was discussed in the GDT, but it would really be interesting if this works out. I'm not buying the conspiracy that he's being groomed for taking over for O'Reilly and Army is already working on that trade, but I will buy that Berube is looking at options, and if Buch does work in that spot, either full-time or as a C/W flex for his line, then it'll be a pretty big boost for the team moving forward.
It does remind me of the days when we "tried" Oshie and Schwartz at center, but if it works, it works.
It does remind me of the days when we "tried" Oshie and Schwartz at center, but if it works, it works.
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,155
- 3,385
The Blues need to play over .600 hockey for the next 30 games just to be in the wildcard mix at the deadline. Not out of the question, but even if they do it, that's still trade+retool zone. They'll have to be one of the two best teams in the conference between now and March 3rd for Armstrong to be able to justify buying or standing pat.
I'm basically with you in that I think they absolutely can squeak in (and continue to compete over the next couple seasons), but they still have to be sellers this year.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,949
- 16,405
The 2nd wildcard spot is currently at an 89/90 point pace. I think we typically say the average is 92-95ish, but some years will be less, the Wild had 87 a few years back and made it, and other years you need the upper 90s to make it. I think the tough part is that if the current top 3 in the Central maintain their reasonable paces, they are probably too far out to catch, and even if we do, we are playing at a ridiculous pace where we are obviously not selling at the deadline. The current 1st wild card is Colorado, and once they get MacKinnon and some other healthy, they'll be back at a high-end pace, so I really only see 1 spot up for grabs at the moment.
That spot will come down to us, LA, Seattle, Edmonton, and Calgary. I'm not even going to bother trying to project the 2nd and 3rd Pacific finishers, and the last wild card spot. All of these teams could either go on a really good stretch or just fall off and look like a lotto team.
If we do recover and are fighting for that spot and look decent, I could see us only making 1 unspectacular move, instead of ROR and Tarasenko. My worry would be an extension for O'Reilly because even today, I have no idea what contract I'd feel comfortable giving him. His offense is down because of losing Perron, and an even more defensive usage this season, but at the end of the day, we don't know how much is driven by that and how much is driven by a potential decline.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,949
- 16,405
Important to note that this stretch includes the 7 game win streak, but also a 4 game losing streak, where we also lost 8 in 10, so it's not a sample that's tilted toward the outlier of that win streak. I still don't think we truly know what this team is, but we probably know enough that they will be a bubble team at a minimum, and guys like Thomas/Kyrou/Buchnevich provide enough offensive upside to climb above bubble status.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,598
- 14,298
There are currently only 6 teams in the West who are .600 or better. It's looking like .550 is going to put you right in the midst of the Wild Card race in the West this year and we're currently at .516 through 32 games. I agree that simply being in the Wild Card mix by the deadline shouldn't justify keeping our soon-to-be UFAs, but I don't think we need to be quite as good as you are suggesting to be in that mix.
I think we'll still be right in the mix if we bank 34 or 35 points in the next 30 games. The West isn't good this year, so the playoff bar is likely to be pretty low. I would very much want to sell if that is the case.
I don't think anyone can honestly predict how many points this team is going to earn. They are wildly inconsistent from game to game and sometimes within games and even within periods. No one should be surprised if this team goes on a month-long heater and no one should be surprised if they lose 7 in a row.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,949
- 16,405
And I think that's the tough part that Army has. I'm thinking it's reasonable that Barbashev plays his way into a contract similar to Saad's, especially if he can work with Thomas and Kyrou. If they can be a top offensive line with a 3rd piece that is paid more like a middle 6 guy, then there's some value. Tarasenko's end should be inevitable like Shattenkirk's was. Similar to how Parayko replaced Shatty on the depth chart, Kyrou has replaced Tarasenko. O'Reilly is the tough one, where his production is down, but he's still handling absurdly difficult minutes that no one else on the roster can handle, and his underlying numbers are still good, but they aren't what they used to be, but how much is it due to more difficult usage, and how much is due to aging?
I'd argue that we can trade Barbashev or Tarasenko and still perform at a similar level, a bubble team that gets knocked out early. If we lose ROR, I think we get knocked down a peg or 2 and are a bubble team that is on the outside looking in.
I'd argue that we can trade Barbashev or Tarasenko and still perform at a similar level, a bubble team that gets knocked out early. If we lose ROR, I think we get knocked down a peg or 2 and are a bubble team that is on the outside looking in.
rumrokh
THORBS
- Mar 10, 2006
- 10,155
- 3,385
That's why the Blues have to play over .600 hockey for the rest of the games to the deadline to be in the mix. Because they have played .500 hockey until now (exactly .500 as of the time I posted that). If you combine those rates, I think you'll find something...
- Status
