2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[bleedblue1223]

There are a lot of posts, so no, I do not remember everything you specifically said. But I did ask what games played and production have to do with media savvy.? The fans might not be so hard on him if he was producing. Ok, I don't care. The fact they'd excuse him for something he needs no excuse for is irrelevant.

You said he wasn't young which by definition is about age. Now you are saying production matters whether you are old or young? And I, as a sports fan, am supposed to intuitively understand at what point on the 4 Dimensional graph of age, production, NHL games plated and salary someone is no longer young enough to say no comment? Sorry, guess I am not a sports fan.

I don't understand why you are being so bad faith right now. I never said anything about being media savvy. I don't even think his comments matter that much, I've said so multiple times now.

Kyrou's production matters because that is the driving factor behind him receiving the reaction he got. When Thomas said Berube was wrong when Berube said the team didn't care, he didn't get any backlash. If Thomas was playing like crap, he absolutely would have. That's why the production matters. Don't move the goal posts on this point, you can either accept what I say on it or not, but that's the point.

25 in professional sports is not young. You citing players like McGing and Perunovich as some sort of gotcha doesn't dispute that. McGing and Perunovich aren't young, they are just inexperience on the NHL level. Kyrou doesn't get some sort of excuse because he's "young".

You are confusing yourself by moving the goalposts on the points I made.

 

[stlbluz]

There are a lot of posts, so no, I do not remember everything you specifically said. But I did ask what games played and production have to do with media savvy.? The fans might not be so hard on him if he was producing. Ok, I don't care. The fact they'd excuse him for something he needs no excuse for is irrelevant.

You said he wasn't young which by definition is about age. Now you are saying production matters whether you are old or young? And I, as a sports fan, am supposed to intuitively understand at what point on the 4 Dimensional graph of age, production, NHL games plated and salary someone is no longer young enough to say no comment? Sorry, guess I am not a sports fan.

Don't bother Mo1 - 1223 is obviously a young fan.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I also find it funny that the bannister question was.....

"What were your thoughts on the coaching change? Does it seem like a fresh start?"

and the only context JR gave us was.....

 

[bleedblue1223]

Jesus, so we are at the point of being bad faith to defend players that we like or attack players we don't like?

Since in the real-world we consider people in their 30s to be young, I guess almost all professional athletes are young. Seriously?

 

[Brian39]

We do not. Rutherford just posted his article about it. He finally gives the question (Blueston posted it). But he says it's the 3rd question he asked, and he very clearly leaves out the 2nd. Given the first was about the same topic, the 2nd probably was too. The second is important context as well, as is Kyrou's answers to the first two questions. All things we never got.

Rutherford also says body language and tone matter, yet he diesn't describe those in the article. He does say he chooses to believe Kyrou wasn't malicious, but dies not definitively say it. And that is buried it the middle. He says he has audio, but he didn't choose to share it. He didn't give up the option to decide for ourselves

He posted the controversy generating statement on Twitter to be seen by millions, but posted that little amount of context on the athletic to be seen by tens of thousands, maybe? He created a controversy to drive people to subscribe to see the full details. I unsubscribed after the tweet and cited JR as the reason. I hope others follow suit.

I'm not unsubscribing from the Athletic because Blues coverage is not my primary reason for maintaining an Athletic subscription. But I share your opinion about that article. The lack of context provided by JR in a piece about the importance of context is ridiculous. I'll just post my comment from the article itself. I directed it at JR since he is known to read comments and I don't care to edit it for this post. For context, the article concludes with the following paragraph:

However long that takes, hopefully this can be a lesson for both a player in a high-profile position and a reporter who has an important responsibility. I know it will be for me.

Here is my comment:

JR, this article does not read to me like you have learned the lesson that you claim to have learned in the final paragraph.

In this article, you discuss the importance of context and tone. Yet this article is still startlingly sparse on the context and tone of your interaction with Kyrou yesterday afternoon. It's great that you informed us of the questions you asked, but how can you possible believe that this article is better served by excluding Kyrou's answers to those questions?

You tweeted his answer to one of those questions yesterday. Or perhaps you combined two answers into one quote on your first tweet. We don't know since you have left that information out of this article. That first tweet with came 2 minutes before your "no comment' tweet, but you made no effort to label the tweets as 1/2 and 2/2 to suggest that they were related quotes. And unsurprisingly, all the follow up stories quoting you only linked the 'no comment' tweet and the vast majority of people who got this info never even saw your first tweet regarding Kyrou's thoughts on Bannister taking over. As you write, you are a veteran sports reporter who has been on hockey social media for a long time. You know perfectly well how sports journalism quotes/repackages tweets in follow up articles. I struggle to believe that you didn't know people would see one tweet and not the other. And yet here were are a day later and Kyrou's words answering your first two questions are still a glaring omission from this article that is allegedly intended to provide the context of your interaction with Kyrou that led to your tweet.

The context you claim is important is omitted from this article. Your twitter is still silent about your newfound stance that context is important and instead directs readers to this article that you tout as your chance to explain what happened (which you know damn well is behind a (reasonably priced) paywall. Again, you are a veteran reporter and you know perfectly well that this article will not be read by a large number of the people who were booing last night. You say that you wanted fans to stop booing and that you don't believe that Kyrou's intention wasn't disdain or malicious on your repeated re-listens to his answers. And yet somehow, you have decided to keep his answers hidden from your readers. I understand (although disagree with) your decision not to include the audio of your interaction. I think it is relevant in an article where you reference his tone and demeanor, but I get that this audio is taken as notes and not content. But to not even include his full quote in writing is baffling.

It certainly doesn't seem to me like there has been any lesson learned about journalistic responsibility. I thought Kyrou was speaking earnestly last night and agree with you about a lesson being learned. I can't say the same about this article.

Edit: Good lord I hate the Athletic's comment functionality. It is a tiny box where you can barely read anything you type beyond 2 sentences and then you can never edit a post. So many typos that I want to fix after re-reading what I wrote.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Lets be real, any of us with a subscription to The Athletic, didn't subscribe for Rutherford or maintain a subscription for Rutherford. He's not as bad as many thing he is, but he's also not very good either.

During his time at The Athletic, I feel he's changed because he's felt pressure to increase the amount of subscriptions he gets and clicks he gets. And because of that, quality has gone down.

 

[Majorityof1]

I'm not unsubscribing from the Athletic because Blues coverage is not my primary reason for maintaining an Athletic subscription. But I share your opinion about that article. The lack of context provided by JR in a piece about the importance of context is ridiculous. I'll just post my comment from the article itself. I directed it at JR since he is known to read comments and I don't care to edit it for this post. For context, the article concludes with the following paragraph:

However long that takes, hopefully this can be a lesson for both a player in a high-profile position and a reporter who has an important responsibility. I know it will be for me.

Here is my comment:

JR, this article does not read to me like you have learned the lesson that you claim to have learned in the final paragraph.

In this article, you discuss the importance of context and tone. Yet this article is still startlingly sparse on the context and tone of your interaction with Kyrou yesterday afternoon. It's great that you informed us of the questions you asked, but how can you possible believe that this article is better served by excluding Kyrou's answers to those questions?

You tweeted his answer to one of those questions yesterday. Or perhaps you combined two answers into one quote on your first tweet. We don't know since you have left that information out of this article. That first tweet with came 2 minutes before your "no comment' tweet, but you made no effort to label the tweets as 1/2 and 2/2 to suggest that they were related quotes. And unsurprisingly, all the follow up stories quoting you only linked the 'no comment' tweet and the vast majority of people who got this info never even saw your first tweet regarding Kyrou's thoughts on Bannister taking over. As you write, you are a veteran sports reporter who has been on hockey social media for a long time. You know perfectly well how sports journalism quotes/repackages tweets in follow up articles. I struggle to believe that you didn't know people would see one tweet and not the other. And yet here were are a day later and Kyrou's words answering your first two questions are still a glaring omission from this article that is allegedly intended to provide the context of your interaction with Kyrou that led to your tweet.

The context you claim is important is omitted from this article. Your twitter is still silent about your newfound stance that context is important and instead directs readers to this article that you tout as your chance to explain what happened (which you know damn well is behind a (reasonably priced) paywall. Again, you are a veteran reporter and you know perfectly well that this article will not be read by a large number of the people who were booing last night. You say that you wanted fans to stop booing and that you don't believe that Kyrou's intention wasn't disdain or malicious on your repeated re-listens to his answers. And yet somehow, you have decided to keep his answers hidden from your readers. I understand (although disagree with) your decision not to include the audio of your interaction. I think it is relevant in an article where you reference his tone and demeanor, but I get that this audio is taken as notes and not content. But to not even include his full quote in writing is baffling.

It certainly doesn't seem to me like there has been any lesson learned about journalistic responsibility. I thought Kyrou was speaking earnestly last night and agree with you about a lesson being learned. I can't say the same about this article.

Edit: Good lord I hate the Athletic's comment functionality. It is a tiny box where you can barely read anything you type beyond 2 sentences and then you can never edit a post. So many typos that I want to fix after re-reading what I

Edit: I asked if your comment was still there because I couldn't find mine. It was there, as was yours. I just had tov ort differently. My bad on that accusation.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

JR doesn’t see the game particularly well to veer into opinion easily independently. Then, over the years he has burned or is in process of burning sources. I feel like he’s been flopping around a lot in recent years looking for an angle.

I’ll veer into opinion, and offer that JR has a warm friendly nice guy personna that he projects well as an initial impression, but you don’t have to dig too deep to see where he’s cowardly, insecure, and two faced. I think most people he is paid to talk to have been around him long enough to see that by now, and it makes doing his job well increasingly more difficult.

He did Kyrou dirty here at a highly emotional time, and he should have to pay a tax for that.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

JR doesn’t see the game particularly well to veer into opinion easily independently. Then, over the years he has burned or is in process of burning sources. I feel like he’s been flopping around a lot in recent years looking for an angle.

I’ll veer into opinion, and offer that JR has a warm friendly nice guy personna that he projects well as an initial impression, but you don’t have to dig too deep to see where he’s cowardly, insecure, and two faced. I think most people he is paid to talk to have been around him long enough to see that by now, and it makes doing his job well increasingly more difficult.

He did Kyrou dirty here at a highly emotional time, and he should have to pay a tax for that.

Nailed it. There's two types of journalists these days, both of which exist at The Athletic. On one had you have those who truly understand the game and can generate interesting thought-provoking content that generates interest organically. On the other hand you have those who lack that ability so they must create engagement by any means necessary, and those types have really come to the forefront in the social media age.

We know where JR stands.

 

[Majorityof1]

I don't understand why you are being so bad faith right now. I never said anything about being media savvy. I don't even think his comments matter that much, I've said so multiple times now.

Kyrou's production matters because that is the driving factor behind him receiving the reaction he got. When Thomas said Berube was wrong when Berube said the team didn't care, he didn't get any backlash. If Thomas was playing like crap, he absolutely would have. That's why the production matters. Don't move the goal posts on this point, you can either accept what I say on it or not, but that's the point.

25 in professional sports is not young. You citing players like McGing and Perunovich as some sort of gotcha doesn't dispute that. McGing and Perunovich aren't young, they are just inexperience on the NHL level. Kyrou doesn't get some sort of excuse because he's "young".

You are confusing yourself by moving the goalposts on the points I made.

I thought you were talking about his age in context of the quote, ie he should have known better than to say that at 25. Hence media savvy. I went back and specifically tracked your comments, and your comment was in regards to production. My bad. Sorry for misconstring you. In my defense, there are a lot of Kyrou conversations crossing in ths thread.

I meant my initial post as a joke, hence the, can we get a ruling from Toronto. It wasn't in some gotcha. Hence why I said I know it is across different posters. That's not much of a gotcha.

I don't know if I agree that kyrou's production is the driving factor. He's always taken flak even when producing. Not at this level, but there is an undercurrent with him that is not there for Thomas. Thomas was on the cup team, Kyrou wasn't. I don't really care to argue it though. None of it matters. Producing, not producing, young, old, none of that matters on regards to this issue. He did nothing wrong. There is nothing to construe through the lens of his production. If you have an issue with his performance, don't boo when he performs like when they announced his assist.

 

[Brian39]

I generally post my post-game thoughts in the GDT the next day, but it is (understandably) locked already. So I'll post them here.

My eye test last night told me that this was one of our best and most complete games of the season. We dominated out of the gate with a clear intent to throw anything and everything on net. We were in double digit shots before they got their first (incredibly unchallenging) shot on Binner and were unquestionably dominant from the opening draw until we had a multi-goal lead. The play became much more 50/50 after we went up 3-0, but we did not allow Ottawa to get a whole lot of grade A looks. The 'evening out' felt much more like the natural outcome of score effects and protecting a lead than us suddenly playing worse.

The numbers under the hood back me up I think. The corsi and xG gap increased in our favor steadily until after our 3rd goal. This was helped along by us getting 3 PP chances in the first 25 minutes of the game, but these were penalties drawn by controlling the play.

The underlying metrics were a little bit more in Ottawa's favor in the 3rd period than my eye test expected, but not to a degree that outweighs the lack of concern I had from the eye test. We allowed a lot of shots, but I thought we did a pretty good job of preventing lateral passes and making sure that Binner simply had to be good and not great.

All in all, I think the 4-2 score is pretty reflective of how this game played out. Binner didn't steal this one and Korpisalo didn't give this one away. We scored on a breakaway, a batted puck that drastically changed the angle for Thomas to tuck it home, a back door one-timer, and a 4 pass one timer rush chance. Korpisalo didn't have a prayer on goals 2-4, which leaves a breakaway as the weakest goal of the night. That is a very, very well deserved 4 goal night that I don't believe is fully captured by the xG numbers.

Ottawa has struggled and it isn't like they are a world beater when they are not struggling. But we've repeatedly looked awful against teams just like that and I felt that this game was more about our own positive execution than about Ottawa playing poorly.

One game does not justify a coaching change or predict anything about the rest of the year, but I don't think there is an argument that this team didn't positively respond in game 1 after the firing. For all the criticism Army has taken about roster construction and his comments about what we should expect this roster to do against bad teams, I think last night shows that this roster is at least capable of better efforts than we saw too often this year.

Edit: I asked if your comment was still there because I couldn't find mine. It was there, as was yours. I just had tov ort differently. My bad on that accusation.

Pretty sure I found yours and learned your first name too

 

[LogosBlue]

I can't say I'm necessarily a fan of Kyrou historically, but I don't hate the kid either. He's taken a lot of crap this year for his lack of production in the increased role / responsibility. You add that on top of an interview that kind of put him in a bad light. I'm sure the pressure is intense on him right now (internal and external).

The interview yesterday got to me. The press wouldn't let up and he had some guts for even taking the questions. You could tell a couple things from this interview:

1.) The kid does like playing for St. Louis and is hurt by the crowd/fan reaction. I feel for the kid. He is still young and needs to mature. This event will either spur him to dig deep and grow into the player we know he can be or cause him to sink even further into this bog that he is currently in. Time will tell and this will determine if he stays in St. Louis long term or not.

2.) Kyrou is a human being who deserves respect. As fans we get caught up in production, salary, competition, effort, sports intelligence, wins, losses, playoffs, championships etc. and lose touch with the personhood of each player. If we are fans of this club and/or fans of Kyrou at all, we need to lay off and give him the space and support he needs to turn it around. If we don't, that speaks volumes about us as people.

3.) I'm glad to see that his teammates are supporting him through this and I hope for him that he can turn things around. I'd love to cheer for the kid and pray this grows him.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I also find it funny that the bannister question was.....

"What were your thoughts on the coaching change? Does it seem like a fresh start?"

and the only context JR gave us was.....

Yeah, jr totally screwed kyrou over. I’d love to see entire roster boycott the sob.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I thought you were talking about his age in context of the quote, ie he should have known better than to say that at 25. Hence media savvy. I went back and specifically tracked your comments, and your comment was in regards to production. My bad. Sorry for misconstring you. In my defense, there are a lot of Kyrou conversations crossing in ths thread.

I meant my initial post as a joke, hence the, can we get a ruling from Toronto. It wasn't in some gotcha. Hence why I said I know it is across different posters. That's not much of a gotcha.

I don't know if I agree that kyrou's production is the driving factor. He's always taken flak even when producing. Not at this level, but there is an undercurrent with him that is not there for Thomas. Thomas was on the cup team, Kyrou wasn't. I don't really care to argue it though. None of it matters. Producing, not producing, young, old, none of that matters on regards to this issue. He did nothing wrong. There is nothing to construe through the lens of his production. If you have an issue with his performance, don't boo when he performs like when they announced his assist.

Fair enough.

They are somewhat similar to Schwartz and Tarasenko. When Schwartz wasn't producing, he was still working hard, battling, etc., since that's a major part of his game. Thomas is that in a similar way too, so he doesn't get flak when he isn't producing because to the fan, the effort is there.

For Kyrou and Tarasenko, when they aren't scoring, it's not obvious to fans that they are putting in a ton of effort. It's flawed because just because they aren't scoring, doesn't mean they aren't putting in effort, but that's why they'll get more flak during cold streaks than someone like Thomas or Buchnevich.

And my overall view with Kyrou. His lack of production has warrented boos, I wouldn't have booed for his comments, and I wouldn't support booing him like the fans did, do it at the beginning, and move on.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Yeah, jr totally screwed kyrou over. I’d love to see entire roster boycott the sob.

"How'd it feel to win the cup?"

"No comment"

 

[ezcreepin]

I also find it funny that the bannister question was.....

"What were your thoughts on the coaching change? Does it seem like a fresh start?"

and the only context JR gave us was.....

Lmaoo what a turd

 

[MissouriMook]

Booing a lack of effort is fair. Booing a guy because he made a tone deaf comment is immature IMO.

That’s how I felt in the building last night. The irony to me was that the immaturity of booing him far exceeded the immaturity in his quote, especially in light of the context provided in Rutherford’s article. I’ve seen the Blues play a lot of bad hockey over the years, but last night was the most embarrassed I’ve ever been at a Blues game.

 

[Brian39]

Schenn needs to show that deserves that C in the next couple weeks.

How the hell is the captain not taking questions last night after a home crowd just spent the entire game booing our own player? Kyrou just got raked over the coals for a poorly worded no comment attempt and Schenn decided he didn't want to talk to media last night? I don't give a damn what he and Kyrou's personal relationship is like (and I don't want to play the speculation game about it). I've played with plenty of guys that I couldn't stand personally. A good leader still has all of his teammate's back publicly.

Last night was an embarrassing display by the home crowd. Our 2 best forwards clearly had Kyrou's back based on their reaction on-ice after goal #4. Thomas made sure to repeatedly emphasize the team having each other's backs in his post-game comments.

But our captain decided not to talk to the media? Come on.

 

[Spektre]

Schenn needs to show that deserves that C in the next couple weeks.

How the hell is the captain not taking questions last night after a home crowd just spent the entire game booing our own player? Kyrou just got raked over the coals for a poorly worded no comment attempt and Schenn decided he didn't want to talk to media last night? I don't give a damn what he and Kyrou's personal relationship is like (and I don't want to play the speculation game about it). I've played with plenty of guys that I couldn't stand personally. A good leader still has their back publicly.

Last night was an embarrassing display by the home crowd. Our 2 best forwards clearly had Kyrou's back based on their reaction on-ice after goal #4. Thomas made sure to repeatedly emphasize the team having each other's backs in his post-game comments.

But our captain decided not to talk to the media? Come on.

Schenn was always just a meh choice for C

 

[Ted Hoffman]

That’s how I felt in the building last night. The irony to me was that the immaturity of booing him far exceeded the immaturity in his quote, especially in light of the context provided in Rutherford’s article. I’ve seen the Blues play a lot of bad hockey over the years, but last night was the most embarrassed I’ve ever been at a Blues game.

I take it you were never at a Blues game when Eric Brewer was on the roster and his wife was present? Cause ... there are people who should be permanently banned from the arena for some of the stuff they said and did to her.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Schenn needs to show that deserves that C in the next couple weeks.

How the hell is the captain not taking questions last night after a home crowd just spent the entire game booing our own player? Kyrou just got raked over the coals for a poorly worded no comment attempt and Schenn decided he didn't want to talk to media last night? I don't give a damn what he and Kyrou's personal relationship is like (and I don't want to play the speculation game about it). I've played with plenty of guys that I couldn't stand personally. A good leader still has all of his teammate's back publicly.

Last night was an embarrassing display by the home crowd. Our 2 best forwards clearly had Kyrou's back based on their reaction on-ice after goal #4. Thomas made sure to repeatedly emphasize the team having each other's backs in his post-game comments.

But our captain decided not to talk to the media? Come on.

Yep. Regardless of what people think of Kyrou and what happened to him was justified or not, or even what Schenn personally thinks of him, Schenn should've been the first one to take questions and make a statement in defense of Kyrou. Even if it was just a standard corporate speak of we are 1 team, we'll stick together and have each other's backs, and we'll be stronger after this adversity because of it.

I have confidence that ROR or Petro would've done that.

I really wish they went with no captain to see if Thomas was ready step up like he has. Schenn is looking like he's going to fall off the cliff like was expected with his contract. Not a good situation when you are just named captain.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

Schenn needs to show that deserves that C in the next couple weeks.

How the hell is the captain not taking questions last night after a home crowd just spent the entire game booing our own player? Kyrou just got raked over the coals for a poorly worded no comment attempt and Schenn decided he didn't want to talk to media last night? I don't give a damn what he and Kyrou's personal relationship is like (and I don't want to play the speculation game about it). I've played with plenty of guys that I couldn't stand personally. A good leader still has all of his teammate's back publicly.

Last night was an embarrassing display by the home crowd. Our 2 best forwards clearly had Kyrou's back based on their reaction on-ice after goal #4. Thomas made sure to repeatedly emphasize the team having each other's backs in his post-game comments.

But our captain decided not to talk to the media? Come on.

Darn right. Unfortunately, a key element of human nature is mob pack mentality, and it was an ugly display here. With it being human nature, JR just put himself on a tee here. The nasty media is always a great target, and JR made it a legitimate outlet for legitimate emotion and frustration to unify the pack that Schenn ought to care most about around. Boomerang this right back to JR, and make it a public display that lets the top line see he has their back. Should have happened last night, but can happen today just as easily. Signals to the fans that’s it’s time to back off too.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Darn right. Unfortunately, a key element of human nature is mob pack mentality, and it was an ugly display here. With it being human nature, JR just put himself on a tee here. The nasty media is always a great target, and JR made it a legitimate outlet for legitimate emotion and frustration to unify the pack that Schenn ought to care most about around. Boomerang this right back to JR, and make it a public display that lets the top line see he has their back. Should have happened last night, but can happen today just as easily.

Schenn won't say anything.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Oh my...now Schenn is the bad guy....along with JR?

$65M over 8 years.....live up to expectations ON and OFF the ice. Jordan gets paid a lot of money to meet expectations.

For that amount of money he should be able to take a few boos in a lifetime of mostly cheers and adulation.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Oh my...now Schenn is the bad guy....along with JR?

$65M over 8 years.....live up to expectations ON and OFF the ice. Jordan gets paid a lot of money to meet expectations.

For that amount of money he should be able to take a few boos in a lifetime of mostly cheers and adulation.

Well when JR posts one comment without providing the full context, yes he should get flack.

And Schenn is the captain. You’re damn right he should stand up and support his teammates.