2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[The Electrician]

Suboptimal news regarding the new practice rink:

Maryland Heights defaults on payment for ice center, raising questions about rink's future

 

[Thallis]

I don't see an easy path forward for the organization. I like Army as a GM. I think he's done a good job during his tenure. I'm not buying into this whole "retool" catch phrase. None of us have magic wands, but I can't see how putting patches and band-aids on this current roster can elevate it to a Cup contender.

Part of me wonders how much of the "re-tool" jargon is for marketing purposes to try to keep butts in seats while we have the kind of dollar allocated to the roster that we do. It took a long time for the broadcast crew to swap tone from "this is a great team who will turn it around" to "we no longer expect to win every night" last season I think for the same reason.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Part of me wonders how much of the "re-tool" jargon is for marketing purposes to try to keep butts in seats while we have the kind of dollar allocated to the roster that we do. It took a long time for the broadcast crew to swap tone from "this is a great team who will turn it around" to "we no longer expect to win every night" last season I think for the same reason.

I think this is right. Army is trying to create competitive club that plays kind of hockey we remember. Nothing he has says indicates he thinks we will be contender next couple years or that he thinks we are 1 or 2 guys away. It’s about being competitive to avoid getting sucked. Into losing vortex and generating revenue /excitement in meantime. None of the moves in past 9 months put future at risk. They are about positioning us for it, both culturally and economically. We brought in guys who are good in room and play way we want to play. We can call it what we want, but it is a don’t fully bottom out rebuild. He wants to avoid what sabres have gone through, where missing playoffs once turns into a decade. And I think that makes sense.

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

And that sweet sweet booger sugar

I must’ve missed the Jori Lehtera PTO

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Yea Army's moves after the All-Star game of last season and into this off-season have clearly had an eye on the future. He went and moved out all of our UFAs last year at the trade deadline, then brought in another crop of soon to be UFAs that if things break right could bank us another haul of draft picks/prospects. Our D is a major concern, but we already tried to trade Krug, so we know Army knows where his mistakes are.

If we sink again, it's not the worst thing in the world. I'd rather play decently well, but I wouldn't hate another top 10 draft pick and 2-3 more 1st round picks or prior 1st round prospects, preferably d-men. Then try and get rid of Krug again in the off-season.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

I must’ve missed the Jori Lehtera PTO

We signed him as a coach whose sole job is making good lines.

 

[Thallis]

I would be very happy with a top 5 pick and a shot at Levshunov, then perhaps Misa next season as well

 

[Brian39]

I don't see an easy path forward for the organization. I like Army as a GM. I think he's done a good job during his tenure. I'm not buying into this whole "retool" catch phrase. None of us have magic wands, but I can't see how putting patches and band-aids on this current roster can elevate it to a Cup contender.

I think there is a world of middle ground between 'a couple patches/bandaids elevates the team to a contender' and 'so clearly a retool isn't possible.' Retooling isn't about putting bandaids on the current roster. You can accomplish a lot of roster turnover in 1-2 years. Here was the top 9 forward group moving forward at the conclusion of the 2016/17 season:

Steen (32), Stastny (31), Lehtera (29), Sobotka (29), Berglund (28), Perron (28), Tarasenko (25), Schwartz (24), and Fabbri (21).

That is a pretty old group with a lot of uncomfortable contracts. The center group especially was a massive weakness. Two years later we won the Cup with the following top 9 by ATOI in the playoffs (additions in bold):

ROR (27), Schenn (27), Tarasenko (27), Perron (30), Schwartz (26), Sunny (24), Bozak (32), Steen, and Thomas (19). Perron left and returned in between those years, Steen went from being our most-used forward to a bottom 6 guy with good special teams impact, and all 3 centers were replaced with veterans from outside the organization.

I would very much say that the Blues retooled from February 2017 through July of 2018. They never bottomed out, they flipped rentals-for-futures-for-players (with term), and targeted some smart UFAs. By doing so, they managed to get younger and much better at a high-value position. That was a hell of a lot more than a couple bandaids/patches, but it was still well short of a tear-it-down rebuild and was absolutely in line with the retool catch phrase being sold by management at the time.

As we stand today, we have to turn around the LD rather than the center group. I'm not sold that the task is any harder than the task of turning around the center group a few years ago. We paid a ton of assets to get Schenn and ROR at a combined $12.625M while shipping out $12.05M. That asset cost was four 1st round assets (three 1st round picks and Tage) and a 2nd rounder. We have a similar stockpile of futures and we have cap flexibility in 2024/25 to eat some bad money to make a deal work to ship out a problem or two.

Targeting the right guy(s) to spend futures assets on is a critical part of a successful retool, but we have the futures assets to pull of a couple deals like that if those guys become available (without touching Dvorsky or Snuggy). Especially if (like the last retool) we are sellers again in a few months and snag another couple valuable futures assets. Franchise altering players do sometimes become available on the trade market. It is rare and they are expensive. But it is far from an impossibility and that type of trade is something that a retool requires. Not bandaids.

 

[Spektre]

I think there is a world of middle ground between 'a couple patches/bandaids elevates the team to a contender' and 'so clearly a retool isn't possible.' Retooling isn't about putting bandaids on the current roster. You can accomplish a lot of roster turnover in 1-2 years. Here was the top 9 forward group moving forward at the conclusion of the 2016/17 season:

Steen (32), Stastny (31), Lehtera (29), Sobotka (29), Berglund (28), Perron (28), Tarasenko (25), Schwartz (24), and Fabbri (21).

That is a pretty old group with a lot of uncomfortable contracts. The center group especially was a massive weakness. Two years later we won the Cup with the following top 9 by ATOI in the playoffs (additions in bold):

ROR (27), Schenn (27), Tarasenko (27), Perron (30), Schwartz (26), Sunny (24), Bozak (32), Steen, and Thomas (19). Perron left and returned in between those years, Steen went from being our most-used forward to a bottom 6 guy with good special teams impact, and all 3 centers were replaced with veterans from outside the organization.

I would very much say that the Blues retooled from February 2017 through July of 2018. They never bottomed out, they flipped rentals-for-futures-for-players (with term), and targeted some smart UFAs. By doing so, they managed to get younger and much better at a high-value position. That was a hell of a lot more than a couple bandaids/patches, but it was still well short of a tear-it-down rebuild and was absolutely in line with the retool catch phrase being sold by management at the time.

As we stand today, we have to turn around the LD rather than the center group. I'm not sold that the task is any harder than the task of turning around the center group a few years ago. We paid a ton of assets to get Schenn and ROR at a combined $12.625M while shipping out $12.05M. That asset cost was four 1st round assets (three 1st round picks and Tage) and a 2nd rounder. We have a similar stockpile of futures and we have cap flexibility in 2024/25 to eat some bad money to make a deal work to ship out a problem or two.

Targeting the right guy(s) to spend futures assets on is a critical part of a successful retool, but we have the futures assets to pull of a couple deals like that if those guys become available (without touching Dvorsky or Snuggy). Especially if (like the last retool) we are sellers again in a few months and snag another couple valuable futures assets. Franchise altering players do sometimes become available on the trade market. It is rare and they are expensive. But it is far from an impossibility and that type of trade is something that a retool requires. Not bandaids.

There's always quite a bit of turnover on NHL rosters from year to year. The difference between now, and the tenure you spoke about, is the current roster isn't 2 capable centers away from contention. This roster is vastly different, mainly because of the D.

I'm glad hockey is back, and I'm looking forward to this season. My fear is the middle ground between contention and a rebuild is going to be the reality. The Blues finishing between 11th and 15th worst in the league is what I dread. Drudging along in mediocrity, year after year is far worse than to me than a full rebuild.

 

[Brian39]

There's always quite a bit of turnover on NHL rosters from year to year. The difference between now, and the tenure you spoke about, is the current roster isn't 2 capable centers away from contention. This roster is vastly different, mainly because of the D.

Yes, that is what I meant by "As we stand today, we have to turn around the LD rather than the center group." The position of need is different, but I don't believe that it is harder to acquire top 4 D than it is to get top 6 centers.

We were more than two capable centers away back then as well. ROR and Schenn were more than 'capable centers.' One was a clear 1C and the other was a low-end 1C or high-end 2C. That is more than merely capable. We also added an above-average 3C in Bozak in UFA. Army gutted and rebuilt the center group with multiple high-end acquisitions.

I think we need fewer D acquisitions to address the problem on D than we did to address the problem at center last go-around. I feel pretty comfortable that multiple high-end LD acquisitions on par with ROR/Schenn (in terms of talent level) would fix the LD.

The task now in a retool would be to flip the stockpile of futures we accumulated (and may/should continue to accumulate) into mid-20s LD with term while shedding bad money. It's not going to be easy and will likely require patience. But it is far from less plausible than the center transformation we saw 5 years ago.

I'm glad hockey is back, and I'm looking forward to this season. My fear is the middle ground between contention and a rebuild is going to be the reality. The Blues finishing between 11th and 15th worst in the league is what I dread. Drudging along in mediocrity, year after year is far worse than to me than a full rebuild.

I think Army should have earned the benefit of the doubt that simply striving for mediocrity isn't really his thing. He sold when we were in that mushy middle in both 2017 and 2018. They were further out this year, but Army was the first seller with the Tarasenko trade. Nothing about his tenure with us so far suggests that he will be content to just sit in the mushy middle. I would fully expect this team to be sellers if we are 11th-15th worst in the league, which would add more futures that help you get out of the mushy middle.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

For what it’s worth, the Athletic writers seem to agree, that a tanking strategy would be beneficial for the Blues this season.

This is a comment in the season preview for the Blues:

“Maybe the Blues successfully tank, earn a top-five pick and do a quick retool to get back into the playoffs soon. A 35 percent chance of landing in the bottom five does look appealing.”

It’s not a popular opinion, but one I agree could catapult the rebuild / retool.

This made me wonder. Say Armstrong DID decide to tank the year (which I think is not in his DNA). He wouldn’t announce it. I think we’d start to see some personnel moves that skewed way too far to young guys early, then at the trade deadline he’d have to show his hand.

I would love to get a top pick, but I don’t see that path to a rebuild being the panacea some observers around hockey consider it.

 

[Spektre]

Yes, that is what I meant by "As we stand today, we have to turn around the LD rather than the center group." The position of need is different, but I don't believe that it is harder to acquire top 4 D than it is to get top 6 centers.

We were more than two capable centers away back then as well. ROR and Schenn were more than 'capable centers.' One was a clear 1C and the other was a low-end 1C or high-end 2C. That is more than merely capable. We also added an above-average 3C in Bozak in UFA. Army gutted and rebuilt the center group with multiple high-end acquisitions.

I think we need fewer D acquisitions to address the problem on D than we did to address the problem at center last go-around. I feel pretty comfortable that multiple high-end LD acquisitions on par with ROR/Schenn (in terms of talent level) would fix the LD.

The task now in a retool would be to flip the stockpile of futures we accumulated (and may/should continue to accumulate) into mid-20s LD with term while shedding bad money. It's not going to be easy and will likely require patience. But it is far from less plausible than the center transformation we saw 5 years ago.


I think Army should have earned the benefit of the doubt that simply striving for mediocrity isn't really his thing. He sold when we were in that mushy middle in both 2017 and 2018. They were further out this year, but Army was the first seller with the Tarasenko trade. Nothing about his tenure with us so far suggests that he will be content to just sit in the mushy middle. I would fully expect this team to be sellers if we are 11th-15th worst in the league, which would add more futures that help you get out of the mushy middle.

I didn’t mean to downplay the importance of Schenn and ROR.

I also don’t think Army’s intention is mediocrity. I think mediocrity might be one result of the current roster, intentions be damned.There’s so many possibilities right now. Put me on the pessimistic side of how things unfold this year.

I’m really trying to wrap my head around where Army sees the organization over the next 3-5 years. He’s on record multiple times saying he weighs the importance of overall impact on the organization in his decisions.

I believe him, for the most part.

I also see him trying to trade Krug for what could be an even worse contract in Sanheim. Time will tell on that one.

I just don’t see how the defense is revamped in the next 2-3 years enough so that fans feel the Blues are a legitimate contender. The depth at forward is a few steps back also. That part really isn’t discussed much.

I’m excited to see Snuggy and Dvorsky get to the NHL. It’s not like either are projected to be game changing talent. They are very good prospects. I can’t see them being traded to fix the D. I don’t see the value in the rest of the prospects to warrant a team giving up a D we would want.

To me, the organization would have to have way more luck on their side to ultimately succeed vs going the rebuild path. We shall see.

 

[Xerloris]

I didn’t mean to downplay the importance of Schenn and ROR.

I also don’t think Army’s intention is mediocrity. I think mediocrity might be one result of the current roster, intentions be damned.There’s so many possibilities right now. Put me on the pessimistic side of how things unfold this year.

I’m really trying to wrap my head around where Army sees the organization over the next 3-5 years. He’s on record multiple times saying he weighs the importance of overall impact on the organization in his decisions.

I believe him, for the most part.

I also see him trying to trade Krug for what could be an even worse contract in Sanheim. Time will tell on that one.

I just don’t see how the defense is revamped in the next 2-3 years enough so that fans feel the Blues are a legitimate contender. The depth at forward is a few steps back also. That part really isn’t discussed much.

I’m excited to see Snuggy and Dvorsky get to the NHL. It’s not like either are projected to be game changing talent. They are very good prospects. I can’t see them being traded to fix the D. I don’t see the value in the rest of the prospects to warrant a team giving up a D we would want.

To me, the organization would have to have way more luck on their side to ultimately succeed vs going the rebuild path. We shall see.

The defense is not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. Our defensive coaching last year was f***ing terrible. All the players we have are professionals good enough to be in the NHL, they aren't going to all one year at the same time forget how to play and lose all basic skills. That was a coaching issue and the defense was atempting to play how they were told to play. Even our forwards were lost in the dzone. This was not a defenseman issue. Could we have better options? Sure. Will our offense be world beaters? Prolly not but if all falls into line they most definitely can compete for a cup. Is it likely that this will happen in the next 2-3 years? Prolly not but there is no reason to be so down about everything.

 

[Spektre]

The defense is not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. Our defensive coaching last year was f***ing terrible. All the players we have are professionals good enough to be in the NHL, they aren't going to all one year at the same time forget how to play and lose all basic skills. That was a coaching issue and the defense was atempting to play how they were told to play. Even our forwards were lost in the dzone. This was not a defenseman issue. Could we have better options? Sure. Will our offense be world beaters? Prolly not but if all falls into line they most definitely can compete for a cup. Is it likely that this will happen in the next 2-3 years? Prolly not but there is no reason to be so down about everything.

If you want to say part of the defensive problems last year was due to coaching, I can accept that. Acting like the majority of blame was because of coaching is a cop out.

Aren’t Berube and Army the boss of the defensive coach? If you say the majority of blame is on the defensive coach you must say it was just as much Berube and Army’s fault for not recognizing it before 82 games.

To say the Blues D are basically fine because they are NHL players is a first. I have to admit I have never heard that put forth as a means to defend the players.

 

[HighNote]

The defense is not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. Our defensive coaching last year was f***ing terrible. All the players we have are professionals good enough to be in the NHL, they aren't going to all one year at the same time forget how to play and lose all basic skills. That was a coaching issue and the defense was atempting to play how they were told to play. Even our forwards were lost in the dzone. This was not a defenseman issue. Could we have better options? Sure. Will our offense be world beaters? Prolly not but if all falls into line they most definitely can compete for a cup. Is it likely that this will happen in the next 2-3 years? Prolly not but there is no reason to be so down about everything.

You can have a d-core filled with guys that, on an individual level, are great players to have, but that means absolutely nothing if they don't mesh well together. Our defense as a whole is average at best and bottom 5 at worst. We saw both of these extremes in the last two seasons. I think people are mostly pessimistic regarding our defense because they realize that with it's current construction, average is the best we can really hope for, and our offense can't make up for that anymore. That and the average age/cost of our d-core.

 

[Xerloris]

If you want to say part of the defensive problems last year was due to coaching, I can accept that. Acting like the majority of blame was because of coaching is a cop out.

Aren’t Berube and Army the boss of the defensive coach? If you say the majority of blame is on the defensive coach you must say it was just as much Berube and Army’s fault for not recognizing it before 82 games.

To say the Blues D are basically fine because they are NHL players is a first. I have to admit I have never heard that put forth as a means to defend the players.

Pretty sure I've been an advocate for a long time now that Berube is a problem. Army also seems to have honed in on the defense coach as an issue since he was fired like day 1 of the off season. Stating that they are an NHL player simply points out that they clearly have the talent to be here. They've proven their talent in the past and the fact that all of them in one season apparently forgot how to play is a coaching issue and not because they do not have the talent to be in the NHL.

 

[Meatball]

Been out of the loop, who was the coach last year? Who is the new coach this year?

 

[BlueDream]

Been out of the loop, who was the coach last year? Who is the new coach this year?

Mike Van Ryn was the coach who had been with us for several years.

He was fired this offseason and replaced by Mike Weber.

 

[Xerloris]

Been out of the loop, who was the coach last year? Who is the new coach this year?

The Blues made immediate changes to Craig Berube's coaching staff after missing the playoffs, firing assistants Craig MacTavish and Mike Van Ryn. General manager Doug Armstrong announced the moves Friday, less than 24 hours after the end of the Blues' regular season

 

[Brian39]

If you want to say part of the defensive problems last year was due to coaching, I can accept that. Acting like the majority of blame was because of coaching is a cop out.

Aren’t Berube and Army the boss of the defensive coach? If you say the majority of blame is on the defensive coach you must say it was just as much Berube and Army’s fault for not recognizing it before 82 games.

To say the Blues D are basically fine because they are NHL players is a first. I have to admit I have never heard that put forth as a means to defend the players.

As @Xerloris pointed out, we fired 2 assistant coaches less than 24 hours after the end of the season. It is crystal clear that they were deemed a massive problem well before the 82 game mark.

Following game 25, we were 5 points out of a playoff spot with 4 teams to jump to get into the last Wild Card spot (with multiple teams ahead of us having games in hand). We were at a .440 points percentage and had just lost 7 of our last 8 games following a 7 game win streak that dug us out of the hole created with our 8 game losing streak. Army may not have fully committed to being sellers at that point, but I think by then he had made the decision not to do anything to help the current group. They were either going to find their own way out or we were going to get a haul for selling rentals.

Firing assistants mid-season is rare and you're not getting an outside hire to fill the job. I think Berube earned a longer leash than being fired mid-season last year, so letting the group either sink or swim on its own was a very reasonable decision IMO. The team didn't do much after that to inspire a GM not to sell his multiple rental assets. They went 6-3-3 the rest of December and 6-8 in January.

I didn't see anything that would suggest that Army should have made a mid-season move to try and fix that group mid-season because selling ROR, Tarasenko, and maybe Barby had become the pretty clear choice pretty damn early in the season. Firing an assistant and scrambling to change the D structure mid-season very much would have been a bandaid decision to push the team toward the mushy middle.

I don't think the fact that we waited until the end of the season to fire 2 assistants is at all illuminative of when Army made the decision to fire them.

 

[Spektre]

As @Xerloris pointed out, we fired 2 assistant coaches less than 24 hours after the end of the season. It is crystal clear that they were deemed a massive problem well before the 82 game mark.

Following game 25, we were 5 points out of a playoff spot with 4 teams to jump to get into the last Wild Card spot (with multiple teams ahead of us having games in hand). We were at a .440 points percentage and had just lost 7 of our last 8 games following a 7 game win streak that dug us out of the hole created with our 8 game losing streak. Army may not have fully committed to being sellers at that point, but I think by then he had made the decision not to do anything to help the current group. They were either going to find their own way out or we were going to get a haul for selling rentals.

Firing assistants mid-season is rare and you're not getting an outside hire to fill the job. I think Berube earned a longer leash than being fired mid-season last year, so letting the group either sink or swim on its own was a very reasonable decision IMO. The team didn't do much after that to inspire a GM not to sell his multiple rental assets. They went 6-3-3 the rest of December and 6-8 in January.

I didn't see anything that would suggest that Army should have made a mid-season move to try and fix that group mid-season because selling ROR, Tarasenko, and maybe Barby had become the pretty clear choice pretty damn early in the season. Firing an assistant and scrambling to change the D structure mid-season very much would have been a bandaid decision to push the team toward the mushy middle.

I don't think the fact that we waited until the end of the season to fire 2 assistants is at all illuminative of when Army made the decision to fire them.

Firing them mid season wasn't the only alternative. They could have insisted on a different scheme etc..

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Firing them mid season wasn't the only alternative. They could have insisted on a different scheme etc..

Why would they do that when they can just blame the entire teams defensive issues on Kyrou.

 

[Xerloris]

Firing them mid season wasn't the only alternative. They could have insisted on a different scheme etc..

I would prefer our GM not telling the coaches how to coach. Just like I would prefer the owner not to tell the GM how to GM.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Firing them mid season wasn't the only alternative. They could have insisted on a different scheme etc..

Scheme was a problem, but as a team we also didn’t play as if we truly cared about defense. If players don’t make that commitment only so much you can scheme. I think changing room and staff were appropriate responses, because talent wise this shouldn’t have been bottom 3 team (or thereabouts) defensively.

 

[execwrite1]

Let's recap. Mike Van Ryn was the Blues d-coach in 2019. They won the Stanley Cup.

Van Ryn was the d-coach last year and the d-corps was terrible.

What changed? The players.

We have a very bad group of defensemen. Changing the coach won't fix that.