2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[Reality Czech]

Do you also believe that David Perron didn't really want to stay?

What does one situation have to do with another? Perron was offered a deal mid-season and he turned it down, preferring to wait and see if he could get more. By the end of the season, Armstrong had moved on to other targets. As far as I've heard, there was no communication from either side in the months leading up to free agency, similar to the Petro situation. Whether or not Perron wanted to stay, he didn't want to stay badly enough to sign the offer midseason when it was presented to him.

In that way, maybe there are similarities to Petro but each situation should be viewed differently. The Petro decision was almost certainly made months and months before he actually hit free agency. Not necessarily where he was gonna go, but that he wanted to test the market. Maybe Petro did think that he may end up circling back to the Blues if he didn't get the offer he wanted, but as we've seen Army isn't the kind of guy to sit back and wait for players to make up their mind.

Both players got more money for signing elsewhere, so I don't blame them for leaving. But that also tells me that they weren't 100% committed to staying here either, which is their right. If a player says "I want to stay, but only if you top all the other offers" or "I want to stay, but I'm gonna wait and see what other offers are out there first" then I question how badly that player truly wanted to stay in the first place. Honestly, I wish both players had re-signed here, but I also recognize that most situations are a lot more complex than they seem on the surface.

 

[Xerloris]

Yes actually it is kind of hard to believe that Petro wanted to be in Vegas over St. Louis, thanks for asking. He had spent his entire career here, was captain of the team, was the first captain in team history to hoist the Cup, and married a St. Louis woman, with whom had many young kids. Generally, a player with THAT background is not looking to uproot his home and bolt elsewhere. And a place like Vegas, despite having a good team, isn’t necessarily the type of city that would be a big draw to someone like Pietrangelo - who isn’t a young party type, and is from Canada so likely isn’t bothered by the cold.

Can you think of other times something similar like this has happened? If a Captain with major roots in a city is leaving a team, you would think it’s because they are either going home (not the case here), wanted a chance to win a Cup (again, not the case since he had just won here), or their team didn’t want them anymore. Hmmm, makes you think. Other than those three reasons, it just doesn’t make sense to simply want to leave. That doesn’t really happen.

Now, regarding Korac, I don’t think he’s the most reliable. I’d give it a 50% chance that his report is accurate, at best. If it is accurate, that’s a fireable offense from Armstrong. But honestly in Armstrong’s defense, I’d be shocked if he would have accepted anything under 8 mil.

I absolutely love how you tell me “there’s a lot of speculation in my post” as you then go on to speculate why you think Pietrangelo wanted to leave STL. Lmao.

Pietrangelo literally came out and said he wanted to stay here. He said they tried and tried to get something done but then had to look elsewhere when things weren’t going anywhere with the Blues. He actually stated a lot of my points (his legacy with the Blues, his wife and kids, etc). So actually no, it’s not speculation.

But hey, I’m sure he’s just lying and your speculation that he’s a greedy asshole who didn’t like St. Louis anymore is TOTALLY correct and definitely not speculation at all. No sir. Armstrong would never be stubborn in negotiations even though - oh wait - he did the same thing with David Perron, who also wanted to stay here? Hm interesting. Almost looks like a bit of a pattern but no, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Perron probably wanted to leave too, despite all his quotes stating otherwise, because Armstrong would never be a meanie.

Back to the Petro discussion for a minute since there’s been discussion lately and I just want to say this. Petro was getting the screw job from Army from getting Petro’s replacement etc, the one rumour was Army wanted petro to accept the AAV before even talking about terms and conditions.

I don’t blame petro if he wanted to move on, I certainly don’t want to stay at my job if my boss was screwing me over.

The only proof we have of anything is that Petro wanted to leave, proof of that is the fact he's not here.

Ah yes, Pietrangelo was the one saving face. But Armstrong definitely wasn’t doing that at all, right?

It’s really funny how you guys will just pick and choose who you want to support and what you want to believe, and you will never change your minds no matter how easily the arguments are picked apart.

Petro's side was the only trying to spin it so yes, he was the one trying to save face. Oh the Krug signing was shocking, it told me they really didn't want me. Or what ever bullshit he spewed out. f*** you dude, you were on your way to Vegas about to spread your legs and you're upset because we moved on? f*** off.

You know how I know Petro didn't really wanna stay in St. Louis? Because he left.

Only reasonable statement in this thread.

Do you also believe that David Perron didn't really want to stay?

Oh yes, I forgot how Armstrong spent the entire week before UFA trying to negotiate with Perron and offered him the biggest contract in team history. Definitely the same f***ing thing as Petro right?

 

[Linkens Mastery]

The more I think about it the more I want Amazon to buyout Bally. Having the NHL plastered across the front page of Amazon like it does for Football would be good for the growth of the NHL.

 

[BlueDream]

What does one situation have to do with another? Perron was offered a deal mid-season and he turned it down, preferring to wait and see if he could get more. By the end of the season, Armstrong had moved on to other targets. As far as I've heard, there was no communication from either side in the months leading up to free agency, similar to the Petro situation. Whether or not Perron wanted to stay, he didn't want to stay badly enough to sign the offer midseason when it was presented to him.

In that way, maybe there are similarities to Petro but each situation should be viewed differently. The Petro decision was almost certainly made months and months before he actually hit free agency. Not necessarily where he was gonna go, but that he wanted to test the market. Maybe Petro did think that he may end up circling back to the Blues if he didn't get the offer he wanted, but as we've seen Army isn't the kind of guy to sit back and wait for players to make up their mind.

Both players got more money for signing elsewhere, so I don't blame them for leaving. But that also tells me that they weren't 100% committed to staying here either, which is their right. If a player says "I want to stay, but only if you top all the other offers" or "I want to stay, but I'm gonna wait and see what other offers are out there first" then I question how badly that player truly wanted to stay in the first place. Honestly, I wish both players had re-signed here, but I also recognize that most situations are a lot more complex than they seem on the surface.

If you’re questioning whether Perron was 100% committed to STL, you are flat out lost. I don’t know what planet you’re living on.

The guy came back to us multiple times after we traded him and exposed him in the expansion draft. He was basically publicly pleading to re-sign here. Heck even after Detroit signed him, he was STILL talking about how disappointed he was. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a player that wants to be a Blue more than David Perron, and you’re over here questioning it.

There’s clearly one party that didn’t make an effort with the other. We know Perron would have accepted a fair deal because he had already shown that. But your mind is made up that you want to defend Armstrong on everything.

 

[TK 421]

So you're mad Petro isn't still here, ok I get it.

Well I'm mad that the upper peninsula is considered to be "Michigan". Even saying "upper peninsula' is supporting the lie that it's part of Michigan. It's the Keewanaw Peninsula and it extends directly as a continuous piece of Wisconsin. It's Wisconsin's hat and Michigan stole it. The cause? Peninsula envy.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

It's been 3 years and change, someone would have to go back and re-create where everyone was going into the 3rd day of UFA to know who was still in and who was still out, but I don't recall it having "cleared" to the point that Vegas was the only team that had cap room left for Pietrangelo. [Which, if it did, would be an argument for Vegas giving him less knowing he had nowhere else to go.] It might be that teams were interested, Pietrangelo's camp had said "we're not interested" and those teams had moved on, but I don't think it was to the point that Petro woke up that morning, looked around and said "... well, f***, I guess it's Vegas or nothing."

To paraphrase Armstrong when he was asked about the possibility of still bring Pietrangelo back (and we can then debate if he was being serious or not), it could have happened - it just might have required getting really creative to do it.

Well I remember it pretty well. The only contender team that had the cap room to offer him a contract like that after he said No to St Louis was Vegas as a couple days went by. And they couldn't do it immediately. You don't remember that things dragged out for a couple days until the contract actually happened. But the only teams with that much Cap left were the bottom feeders, or teams that would have not been true contenders even after adding him.

I thought it was strange at the time that Vegas paid him as much as they did, but I guess its a bad move to put market pressure on a guy and have him start out disgruntled. Or maybe it was honoring a verbal deal (most likely).

I'm sure some other teams would have been willing to make room, but they'd have had to clear cap space. I'm not clear on those details, but can't you go over the Cap by a percentage at that point (10%?), but have to be in compliance by training camp? If so perhaps another team could have been a threat that way.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

Im glad the Lightning gave us a reality check. We need to get this tank back on track. If Army truly wants to pull off a 3ish year re-tool instead of a 5+ year full rebuild, we absolutely need a top 7 pick this year and need to follow that up with a top 10ish pick next year. All this talk about Hanifan i truly hate for two reasons: 1. We need to be picking as high as possible in 2024, adding Hanifan now makes us a better middling team and doesnt get us anywhere long-term. 2. We shouldnt even be considering moving either of our next two 1sts as they will/should be high picks and those players will have a good shot at turning into a big part of our competitive core within the next 4-5 years when all the prospects start hitting the main roster. The Hanifan trade idea in theory is a good one, but the timing just isnt right. To me, the earliest you start looking for a deal like that is after the 2024-25 season.

Here's an updated plan on how this could all possibly work:

1. Add top end talent via the draft the next two drafts to strengthen our already growing prospect pool.
2. Add an additional late 1st at the deadline, not sure what this would look like, but Army usually has a deal or two up his sleeve.
3. Re-sign Buchy. Him, Thomas, Parayko and Kyrou will all be a big part of being able to turn the ship around somewhat quickly once the youngsters all start arriving.
4. Start looking for a big time trade or adding a big FA after the 2024-25 season.
5. Start really competing in 2025-26, and deeper runs in the playoffs a reality by the following year.

 

[simon IC]

Im glad the Lightning gave us a reality check. We need to get this tank back on track. If Army truly wants to pull off a 3ish year re-tool instead of a 5+ year full rebuild, we absolutely need a top 7 pick this year and need to follow that up with a top 10ish pick next year. All this talk about Hanifan i truly hate for two reasons: 1. We need to be picking as high as possible in 2024, adding Hanifan now makes us a better middling team and doesnt get us anywhere long-term. 2. We shouldnt even be considering moving either of our next two 1sts as they will/should be high picks and those players will have a good shot at turning into a big part of our competitive core within the next 4-5 years when all the prospects start hitting the main roster. The Hanifan trade idea in theory is a good one, but the timing just isnt right. To me, the earliest you start looking for a deal like that is after the 2024-25 season.

Here's an updated plan on how this could all possibly work:

1. Add top end talent via the draft the next two drafts to strengthen our already growing prospect pool.
2. Add an additional late 1st at the deadline, not sure what this would look like, but Army usually has a deal or two up his sleeve.
3. Re-sign Buchy. Him, Thomas, Parayko and Kyrou will all be a big part of being able to turn the ship around somewhat quickly once the youngsters all start arriving.
4. Start looking for a big time trade or adding a big FA after the 2024-25 season.
5. Start really competing in 2025-26, and deeper runs in the playoffs a reality by the following year.

You don't want to sign a 26 yr old Hanafin, because it interferes with a rebuild, but you do want to re-sign a 28 yr old Buchnevich?

 

[Celtic Note]

You don't want to sign a 26 yr old Hanafin, because it interferes with a rebuild, but you do want to re-sign a 28 yr old Buchnevich?

I am guessing there is a distinction between sign versus trade for and sign. There would be for me at least.

 

[simon IC]

I am guessing there is a distinction between sign versus trade for and sign. There would be for me at

I don't want to trade our 1st either, so I get that. It is the "time-line" argument I don't understand. If you are truly bent on rebuilding, would it not make more sense to trade Buchnevich for futures?

 

[Drubilly]

I don't want to trade our 1st either, so I get that. It is the "time-line" argument I don't understand. If you are truly bent on rebuilding, would it not make more sense to trade Buchnevich for futures?

I'm slowly starting to accept a reality where Army trades Buch.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Well I remember it pretty well. The only contender team that had the cap room to offer him a contract like that after he said No to St Louis was Vegas as a couple days went by. And they couldn't do it immediately. You don't remember that things dragged out for a couple days until the contract actually happened.

Now that you mention this: yes, I do recall this.

But the only teams with that much Cap left were the bottom feeders, or teams that would have not been true contenders even after adding him.

That's start to jump to conclusions a bit. On October 11 when free agency opened, I suspect multiple teams could have fit him in. Including the Blues. Once Pietrangelo's camp told teams, "yeah, we're going to Vegas" then teams would have made moves accordingly. I don't think the fact that Vegas created cap room to finally sign him on October 13 (the 3rd day of free agency in 2020) means that it was guaranteed Pietrangelo was leaving St. Louis well before he hit UFA, as has been insinuated by a lot of people.

Is it possible Pietrangelo had Vegas in mind as the backup if he didn't get a deal done here? Sure. I'm sure there were backup plans if I have to look elsewhere I'd want to go to ___ and _____ and _______, but he didn't think they'd happen. Hell, I have backup plans for lots shit and I don't think I'll ever need them - and executing on them doesn't mean it's going to be easy, even if I'm pretty unemotional about making and executing on decisions and I'd have to act quickly on something.

I thought it was strange at the time that Vegas paid him as much as they did, but I guess its a bad move to put market pressure on a guy and have him start out disgruntled. Or maybe it was honoring a verbal deal (most likely).

Who knows. Vegas has always shown it will lob a f***wad of cash at guys and worry about the cap later, whether someone else was interested in the guy or not. Again, I don't care - but I'm sure I could care less.

I'm sure some other teams would have been willing to make room, but they'd have had to clear cap space. I'm not clear on those details, but can't you go over the Cap by a percentage at that point (10%?), but have to be in compliance by training camp? If so perhaps another team could have been a threat that way.

Yes, you can go over by up to 10% in the offseason. (And then get back under by the start of the season.) So it's possible that someone could have done that. I'd have to roll back the clock to the evening of October 10, 2020 and see where everyone was wrt the cap and then we'd know who had cap space and when (and on whom) teams blew it on their next FA mistake.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'm slowly starting to accept a reality where Army trades Buch.

If this becomes a rebuild, I don't know why we wouldn't trade him. By the time a rebuild finally evolves to making the playoffs, Buch will be at least 32, possibly 33-34 depending on how quickly the kids evolve. I don't see him signing for ~5 years to be here in a rebuild, and signing him for 7-8 years to be around through that rebuild will leave him on the back side of a contract that, for his style of play, could start to get ugly like Schenn's. Trading him before this contract ends will bring a huge return that can help get pieces in to help the rebuild move a little faster, while adding pieces that can help keep the prospect pool deeper for longer.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

You don't want to sign a 26 yr old Hanafin, because it interferes with a rebuild, but you do want to re-sign a 28 yr old Buchnevich?

The cost of either our 24' or 25' 1st is the timeline issue, not the age. Make a similar trade for a difference maker in 2 years when our pick is either already on a slight upswing or we have atleast drafted a core of top prospects similarly aged.

 

[Brian39]

What does one situation have to do with another? Perron was offered a deal mid-season and he turned it down, preferring to wait and see if he could get more. By the end of the season, Armstrong had moved on to other targets. As far as I've heard, there was no communication from either side in the months leading up to free agency, similar to the Petro situation. Whether or not Perron wanted to stay, he didn't want to stay badly enough to sign the offer midseason when it was presented to him.

In that way, maybe there are similarities to Petro but each situation should be viewed differently. The Petro decision was almost certainly made months and months before he actually hit free agency. Not necessarily where he was gonna go, but that he wanted to test the market. Maybe Petro did think that he may end up circling back to the Blues if he didn't get the offer he wanted, but as we've seen Army isn't the kind of guy to sit back and wait for players to make up their mind.

Both players got more money for signing elsewhere, so I don't blame them for leaving. But that also tells me that they weren't 100% committed to staying here either, which is their right. If a player says "I want to stay, but only if you top all the other offers" or "I want to stay, but I'm gonna wait and see what other offers are out there first" then I question how badly that player truly wanted to stay in the first place. Honestly, I wish both players had re-signed here, but I also recognize that most situations are a lot more complex than they seem on the surface.

Your statement was "You know how I know Petro didn't really wanna stay in St. Louis? Because he left. Rather than trying to decipher tidbits of information that may or may not be true, I base my judgment on what actually happened."

The point of my question is that it is silly to pronounce a player's intentions based on the result of a negotiation without considering the tidbits of information we get about the negotiations. Most people are (IMO correctly) eager to say that Perron not signing here wasn't proof that he didn't want to stay. They do that by referencing the tidbits of information that may or may not be true. I firmly agree that Perron wanted to stay. I think the context demonstrates that he would still be here if Army had been willing to offer a 2nd year.

But my point is that you can't do that for one player while simultaneously saying that the tidbits of information about negotiations aren't relevant to determine the mindset of another player who left. If we are acknowledging that the context of Perron's negotiation are important in analyzing his desire to be here, then you can't just handwave that context away and say we know Petro clearly didn't want to be here because he ended up signing elsewhere.

If you want to be consistent, you need to either base your judgment on what actually happened (the player leaving) or accept that the context of negotiations is important. Having different standards of judgment for different players/situations is a clear indication of bias.

FWIW, I think both players wanted to stay. Neither was 100% committed to staying for a contract they felt was unreasonable and both of them left the negotiation process with Army feeling that they were either disrespected or under-appreciated by this organization. They both knew that they could get more security and money from another team and elected to take that security and money rather than re-signing here even though they both had substantial ties to the St. Louis community.

I don't blame either player for having their lines in the sand because at the end of the day it appears that all of the lines they drew were reasonable in the context of the marketplace. But I don't think it is remotely accurate/fair/reasonable to say that the players having those lines is evidence that they didn't want to be here. I think Army should have been willing to cross all of the lines both players drew. I understand why he didn't and I don't think it was a personality fault or villainous behavior not to.

But I think both were poor business decisions (although I am less firm on that belief with Perron than Petro). I don't need anyone to be a villain in order to come away from the situation believing that the GM misplayed the situation.

I still haven't seen anything to convince me that there was no reasonable deal to be made with Petro and that the months of negotiation updates/rumors/reports we got were simply him pretending that he was willing to stay. I'm skeptical of the $7.5M report and I think that if it is true then it was an internal line in the sand from his camp and not a formal offer presented to the Blues. But I haven't seen anything to suggest that he wouldn't be a Blue if we had offered him the exact contract Vegas gave him (or an 8 year deal with a lower AAV but slightly more total dollars and the same NMC/bonus structure). I think we have gotten more than enough tidbits of info to say with confidence that a full NMC for the duration of the contract was a line in the sand Army wasn't willing to cross. Whether that was the #1 sticking point, I think it is clear that it was something that was actually important to Petro. And at the end of the day, a full NMC for the duration of the deal absolutely was the industry norm for a player of Petro's caliber.

Given all of those pieces of information, I view the failure to extend Petro as an organizational failure. I said that at the time. I think the cascade of subsequent events/decisions and hindsight clearly supports that stance. I think this team would have absolutely been better from 2020/21 through today if we had signed Petro to the contract Vegas gave him (or an identically structured 8 year deal in the $8M-$8.25M range). And today, I would rather have that contract currently on our books than any of the D contracts currently on our books. I see arguments for preferring the Faulk or Parayko contracts depending on how this team views their next 2-3 years, but I'd have preferred the Petro contract to either of them. I view the result of this negotiation as a self-inflicted wound and not something that was unavoidable. The fact that Petro ultimately left does not prove to me that his leaving was unavoidable in the same way that Perron leaving isn't proof of that.

 

[Brian39]

All this talk about Hanifan i truly hate for two reasons: 1. We need to be picking as high as possible in 2024, adding Hanifan now makes us a better middling team and doesnt get us anywhere long-term. 2. We shouldnt even be considering moving either of our next two 1sts as they will/should be high picks and those players will have a good shot at turning into a big part of our competitive core within the next 4-5 years when all the prospects start hitting the main roster. The Hanifan trade idea in theory is a good one, but the timing just isnt right. To me, the earliest you start looking for a deal like that is after the 2024-25 season.

I'm not advocating trading our own 1st for Hanifin right now, because there is a boatload of uncertainty about where our next two picks will end up. Lottery protecting the 1st right now would still put us at risk of Calgary then getting what could be a very high pick in 2025.

With that said, I think Hanifin has a pretty good chance of being a better player over an 8 year timeline than whoever we may draft at #5-10. Tons of guys in that range wind up not exceeding what Hanifin should be on an 8 year timeline. I don't think the guy you can get at #5-#10 is such a slam dunk that it is worth passing up the acquisition of good players in a deal that makes your team good enough to pick #10-15. Here are the guys drafted #5-10 in some drafts that are old enough to say we 'know' what teams got. All player in order of draft position from 5 to 10:

2013: E Lindholm, Monahan, Nurse, Ristolainen, Horvat, Nichuskin

2014: Dal Colle, Virtanen, H Fleury, W Nylander, Ehljers, Nick Ritchie

2015: Hanifin, Zacha, Provorov, Werenski, Meier, and Rantanen.

2016: Juollevi, M Tkachuk, Keller, Alex Nylander, Sergachev, Jost

2017: Elias Petterssen, Cody Glass, Lias Anderson, MIddlestadt, Rasmussen, Tippett

2018: Hayton, Zadina, Q Hughes, Boqvist, Kravtszov, Bouchard

Plenty of guys in there who impacted their NHL organization more than Hanifin should impact his organization over the next 8 years. But also plenty who fell way short of what we would reasonably expect out of Hanifin. You also have to factor in the benefits of the cap savings on an ELC and 2nd contract and that often swings things in favor of a lesser player.

But my overall point is that a 26 year old (turning 27 in January) that solves a long-term need will often times outperform what you get out of drafting/developing top 10 talent. If I believe that Hanifin 'solves' our top pair LHD issue, I don't pass up that move on the grounds that the timing isn't right. He's a good enough player that you have a fairly good chance of not outperforming him with a pick in the #5-10 range. Acquisition cost is important and I want to stress again that I'm not advocating for trading our own 1st rounder for him at the moment. But if we can package a couple mid-late 1st value assets for him and extend him for a price we like, I don't think that potentially sliding from a #5-10 pick down to a pick in the teens is a reason to nix the trade.

 

[PJJJP]

Currently the blues sit at 11th worst by points percentage. So basically where we finished last year. I don't think the Ducks, Hawks, Sharks or Blue Jackets will pass us. I expect the Flames will stay under us when they sell off Hanafin, Lindholm, Tanev. We are below the Canadiens and don't know how long that will last. The teams I am looking at are the Oilers, Wild, Kraken, Sabres, and Sens. The Oilers should be better but have horrible goaltending. The Kraken were better last year but I'm starting to think that was a one off season. The Wild are playing better hockey recently and if the goaltending can be average I think they will pass us. I thought the Sabres would take the next step with their young players but a lot of them have been hit or miss this season and they have goalie problems. The Sens on paper look good with Tkachuk, Stutzle, Giroux, Batherson, Norris, and Tarasenko up front and Sanderson, Chabot, Chychrun, an Zub on defense. However I don't know what has happened with them and maybe it was a coaching problem and maybe they get better since they have fired their old coach. I think the best we can finish is 8th with the roster we have.

 

[Mike Liut]

Currently the blues sit at 11th worst by points percentage. So basically where we finished last year. I don't think the Ducks, Hawks, Sharks or Blue Jackets will pass us. I expect the Flames will stay under us when they sell off Hanafin, Lindholm, Tanev. We are below the Canadiens and don't know how long that will last. The teams I am looking at are the Oilers, Wild, Kraken, Sabres, and Sens. The Oilers should be better but have horrible goaltending. The Kraken were better last year but I'm starting to think that was a one off season. The Wild are playing better hockey recently and if the goaltending can be average I think they will pass us. I thought the Sabres would take the next step with their young players but a lot of them have been hit or miss this season and they have goalie problems. The Sens on paper look good with Tkachuk, Stutzle, Giroux, Batherson, Norris, and Tarasenko up front and Sanderson, Chabot, Chychrun, an Zub on defense. However I don't know what has happened with them and maybe it was a coaching problem and maybe they get better since they have fired their old coach. I think the best we can finish is 8th with the roster we have.

sounds about right

 

[PocketNines]

Of all the years to be on pace to lose 5 man games to injury ...

 

[Mike Liut]

Of all the years to be on pace to lose 5 man games to injury ...

it just means we’re due

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Blues (and 10 other teams) broadcasting Rights revert back to the NHL at the end of this season.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

So you're mad Petro isn't still here, ok I get it.

Well I'm mad that the upper peninsula is considered to be "Michigan". Even saying "upper peninsula' is supporting the lie that it's part of Michigan. It's the Keewanaw Peninsula and it extends directly as a continuous piece of Wisconsin. It's Wisconsin's hat and Michigan stole it. The cause? Peninsula

So you're mad Petro isn't still here, ok I get it.

Well I'm mad that the upper peninsula is considered to be "Michigan". Even saying "upper peninsula' is supporting the lie that it's part of Michigan. It's the Keewanaw Peninsula and it extends directly as a continuous piece of Wisconsin. It's Wisconsin's hat and Michigan stole it. The cause? Peninsula envy.

Now I am hungry for a pasty.

 

[wiscrev]

Now I am hungry for a pasty.

Readily available at my house. Just 20 miles from the UP.

 

[Louie the Blue]

So, if Bannister isn't made the full-time head coach, would this be the first time the Blues did an extensive head coaching search in the off-season since Keenan, if we don't count Yeo who was hired as coach in waiting?

 

[PocketNines]

Mike Kitchen wasn't the product of an extensive off season head coaching search?

joking