Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread
- Thread starter simon IC
- Start date
- Status
Can you please rephrase this MORE condescendingly? The tone is too subtle.
I don't think anyone on this forum qualifies as an Armstrong "flunkie" or "flack", but I don't mind being included in the group that thinks they can see some sense to most of what he's done since the Cup run. The handling of the Pietro extension negotiation has been covered elsewhere in this forum. You may have come across the main points. For brevity, let's just concede that as fully on Armstrong and a terrible botched negotiation.
Otherwise I really don't fault him for giving that existing core another couple kicks at the can. He tried to keep that roster intact. Faulk and Krug were the right aged players to contribute immediately. Were there other defensive post-Pietro options? Nothing that was terribly obvious or that we could honestly argue was certainly available to him.
Last year, the clock struck midnight for that core and he pulled the plug. Its not the norm for a Cup-winning roster to continue to stay contenders indefinitely. The team spent a lot of draft capital to fill in the roster to BECOME contenders, and the bill came due. I think that is a reasonable way to approach a contending window, and I don't think that approach reflects poorly on Armstrong.
The post Cup seasons could have yielded another Cup. The 2020 team looked like a strong contender until the Covid disruptions. Even Colorado's Cup season, I think that Blues team had a chance to win that series with a post-season level Binnington, which is what it was starting to look like. They were the toughest opponent to Colorado.
And now we've seen a pivot to accumulating quality draft capital (the prospect cupboard is starting to look pretty inspiring, even if it doesn't include a 1st overall superstar player). We all agree the defense needs to be built, and it isn't going to happen from existing Blues draftees. But there is enough currency there that they could acquire a key piece or two.
I'm pretty sure you have me on ignore, so this post is probably only for the benefit of the rest of the forum. I'm out of patience with your overly dramatic constant condescension for the posters on this forum. Can we all agree to stop relitigating the Pietro failed negotiation? Using more creatively acerbic language doesn't magically restore the freshness of those events for worthwhile discussion. Beyond that, yeah...I don't see anything so terrible in the pivot toward a rebuild/re-whatever.
The current roster is flawed, but it also may be good enough to be a playoff team. The World Junior Championships should be a revelation to the hockey world that the Blues have some damn good prospects coming up. There is enough young talent pending that we can reasonably expect a good roster to be constructed.
Armstrong is also the guy who acquired Bouwmeester, Schenn, O'Reilly, and lesser contributing pieces like Bozak, Gunnarsson, Sundqvist and even Perron. In his ineptitude, he somehow miraculously assembled a pretty scary roster the rest of the league feared. This wasn't some magical run that wasn't surrounded by multiple seasons when the Blues won a hell of a lot of games. They were a legit Cup contender when they broke through, and for seasons after. Why must we assume he's not capable of maneuvering his assets to address the holes in the roster when the young group starts to be ripe to power a contender?
Maybe he will fail, but I don't think Blues fans who expect him to do a solid job at this task deserve the heaping ridicule you enjoy dishing out. In my view, the mean-spirited posting is your actual hobby here, not the fandom of the team.
542365
2018-19 Cup Champs!
- Mar 22, 2012
- 22,560
- 9,034
Anyone remember P9s lobbying hard for a Jaden Schwartz for Brandon Gormley trade back in the day? Good times.
Both of these are very well thought out and I'm sure they're making someone out there very angry.
ezcreepin
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2016
- 2,713
- 2,477
People can say what they want about Armstrong, but just go look at his trade history on capfriendly and tell me he doesn't win most of the trades he makes. Every GM is going to botch some trades (sometimes more than others and more costly), but his recoveries seem to be very thoughtful and have panned out, if not in the positive, at least in the neutral. Key trades like:
Brewer for a 3rd (Binnington)
Boyes for a 2nd (Edmundson)
Infamous Bouw trade
Redden for a 6th (Blais)
Perron move to EDM that got us Barbashev
Polak for Gunnar and a 4th (Husso)
Cole for Bortz and a 7th <-- even for both teams even if Cole was a better player
Elliott for a 2nd and 3rd (2nd was Kyrou)
Moving up to get Tage and subsequently trading him for O'Reilly
Reaves and 2nd for Sundqvist and a 1st
Lehtera and 2 firsts for Schenn <-- will be lopsided for Philly but we won a cup because of it
There are some stinkers in there for sure, but in context, the trades made sense at the time and a lot of the smaller deals Army has made turned out good or neutral for the Blues. I'm not going to obfuscate and say he hasn't made worse trades recently compared to 10+ years ago, but he's been an above average GM.
I’ve been an Armstong supporter and continue to be one. My problem hasn‘t been the trades as I think overall he has done a good job. My problem is the guys that he has signed to long term contracts that have locked us in to some boat anchors that cannot be moved. It has clearly limited us to make moves that would benefit the team in the short term.
This is a legitimate criticism. The Krug deal is the most painful, but its a lot less painful this year than it was last season. Even at that, we saw a pretty palatable trade opportunity (that was nixed) so I think there are other ways to deal with it. He's a more attractive asset now, playing better and one less year of commitment to the recipient.
I think the deals to Krug and Faulk are the cost of doing business with UFAs. I'm sure the front office would have preferred shorter deals, but if that's what they'd offered those players would have signed with other teams that gave them the term they were looking for. What would the Blues have done then? Sign a lesser player, or rush inexperienced prospects? That's not what you do when you think you're milking the back end of your Cup contender window.
When I look around the league, the Blues have less bad value contracts than most teams. With the Cap finally starting to rise again, I think we'll find that those deals aren't really going to hamstring the assembly of the next contending core. Remember, Lehtera turned into Schenn. It cost some draft capital, but there are deals like that to be made. The rising Cap not only makes things looser for the Blues, but it gives other GMs room to take on cap too.
There's no doubt, we're at a phase where a brilliant GM is going to show his quality. And bad mistakes can be made which hurt a long time. But I also think we need to give Armstrong credit for keeping an effective scouting department in operation. We lauded Jarmo. We lauded Bill Armstrong. They're both gone, and we've seen recent draft picks look smarter and smarter as soon as one season later. The guy who is responsible for hiring those guys is Doug Armstrong. If they did a bad job, he would also be responsible.
- Feb 12, 2008
- 19,977
- 9,511
I’d hang on to Binny because with so much parity in the league, I feel we are only a couple moves away from being legit contenders as soon as next year. We are a #1 LD and #2 center away from being able to compete with anybody. I fell we have the assets to acquire these players. If a 1LD was available for 3 years minimum term, id move our 1st for him, as long as our 1st is #8 or later.
I agree with this. If Dvorsky and Snuggarud make the team next year I would want them to make the playoffs so those guys can start getting that experience. If they make the team and do well and Army can somehow fix the Defense (buyout/trade) I think they could be a bubble playoff team. I would like to see Binny get another opportunity for a playoff run. I am concerned about how long they can keep Zherenko in the AHL. He is having a good season this year and next year will be his 3rd in the AHL. I would think he would want an opportunity in the NHL soon.
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
Few things:
Isolated, I don't have a problem with either the Faulk or Krug contracts but together with the rest of the roster it isn't ideal. Additionally, Faulk was acquired via trade instead of UFA (he was extended shortly after he was acquired) and is an upgrade over Edmundson. One could argue not acquiring Faulk would've allowed more flexibility for the roster.
The contracts Armstrong has given overall aren't terrible but giving out NTCs to 9 players (not counting Hayes because Armstrong didn't sign his contract) also makes roster building more rigid.
Jarmo was hired by Pleau and had very little overlap, if any, with Armstrong during his tenure as GM. Jarmo oversaw the 2010 draft while Armstrong I believe took over GM duties shortly after the draft while Pleau transitioned to an advisory role.
Bill Armstrong was also hired by Pleau and then promoted to Jarmo's position after Jarmo left by Armstrong.
Faulk was still an UFA deal that had to be negotiated.
We may never know what Armstrong knew, or thought he knew, about the defense going into the Faulk acquisition/signing. If he was certain Pietro was leaving and he didn't make the Faulk trade, there is a much bigger problem later. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to fully appraise the sense of that move, but the trade cost was a pittance for a quality NHL defender.
If we found out he could have had Faulk for Edmundson and didn't make the move, only to lose Edmundson later for nothing, its really hard to justify that. Almost as bad as passing on Buchnevich for Blais.
Who is the next quality NHL guy out there that doesn't fit under his team's cap structure that Doug Armstrong can poach for next to nothing?
(My point about the scouting department is that he has maintained (or even elevated) the effectiveness of the amateur scouting during his tenure, despite the Blues losing the men who were credited for its success. I think he has a good eye for scouts. The pro scouting has been above average too, but not perfect.
Snubbed4Vezina
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2022
- 2,441
- 4,303
Army had that trade with Krug going to Philly for Sanheim but we all know what happened there.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,348
- 6,320
He also gave the NTC that prevented the trade.
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
I'm saying that Faulk's contract in itself isn't bad nor is his cap hit. His contract, along with Krug's, makes the roster composition incredibly rigid. If I'm going to criticize his decision-making on defense, it's panicking to extend Scandella shortly after he was acquired from Montreal. Using this player as an example only, but the $ from extending Scandella could've been better allocated to acquiring someone like Toews from NYI.
Krug blocked a trade to Philadelphia using his NTC, which in turn continues to exacerbate the flaws on defense
people keep complaining about krug ntc, but he has been pretty good this year. and by him blocking trade we were able to keep our last 1st and pick lindstein, who i think will be a key part of d. so sanheim woulda been nice, but theo might be even better. and it's not like we were gonna be great if we dealt krug.
I like Armstrong and tend to view things from more a positive outlook, but I agree that he sometimes pulls the trigger too early on extensions. I don't think it is panicked, but just sometimes gives out contracts too soon.
We can look at Scandella, but Lehtera falls into this category also. Jordan Leopold.... So, IMO he has a bit of a history here, where he is too quick to sign a player based on a short window of solid play. But part of this is also professional scouts too..
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,622
- 6,465
100%, Krug exercising his NTC will turn out to be a good thing. Not only did we retain the 29th pick we converted it into one of the few safe bets on a top 4 LD in the '23 draft and Krug has less term than Sanheim. Still time to move Krug eventually and we should be thrilled with having Theo in cue.
Majorityof1
Registered User
Have you watched Sanheim this year? He is playing first pairing hockey. It's a long shot Lindstein hits that. Time will tell whether it was good or bad. But it is far, far, far from 100%.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,728
Whoa. Let's stop right here and clarify what we're talking about.
Will Thomas and Kyrou have had their peak career seasons by this point? Perhaps, perhaps not. Will they be close to it if they haven't? Yes, they'll probably be very close.
Will that necessarily mean they're "on the declline?" Relative to their peak season, ... sure, by definition if they don't have another career year they'll be "on the decline" from that. But that in no way means they're going to be only 3rd-line guys. They can still be 1st-line, 2nd-line players and filling really useful roles. Unless in this vision we're not going to be really competitive for another 8, 9 years, let's hit the brakes on the notion that they'll be "on the decline."
The question has never been whether he wins trades. It's that he wins a ton of trades, and despite that the team is not nearly as elite as one would expect. But we've been Xth in regular season points over .... - great, and until 2019 it didn't mean shit for playoff success save a 2016 WCF run that required a pair of 7-game wins. And, since then, it hasn't really meant shit either.
At some point, regular season success isn't the measuring stick, and constantly falling back on 2019 argues that it's a perpetual job that can never be taken away.
You're correct, but I'll fill in a couple blanks.
Doug Armstrong was hired in late 2009 as an advisor. At some point in 2010 - I think around February - the decision was made that Doug would be the next GM even though Jarmo was an AGM [with Kevin McDonald, who was overseeing the Peoria Rivermen]. Depending on who you listen to, either Doug didn't take over the GM spot until after the 2010 draft or he took it over prior to that when he orchestrated the Halak trade and his assumption of the GM duties wasn't announced for ... whatever reasons. Jarmo announced his resignation from the team very shortly after Doug got promoted to GM, but stayed around for the 2010 draft. So yes, there wasn't much overlap. [And from what I've been told, one way or another there wasn't going to be much overlap.]
Bill Armstrong was an amateur scout under Jarmo. [Whether he was hired by Pleau or not is kind of irrelevant.] Jarmo left, Bill went into Jarmo's spot on Jarmo's recommendation.
Thallis
No half measures
I mean that they'll likely be in their 30s by the time we actually have the pieces to be competitive if we're consistently drafting in the mid teens for the next few years. Whether they continue to be PPG or near forwards then is a question.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,728
That's 5-6 years out. [OK, nitpicking: 5.5 years for Thomas, 4.33 years for Kyrou before each turns 30 - and then add on from there as needed.] If we don't have the pieces to be competitive until then, the current GM will be (better be) long gone. And, it will mean we've overrated the guys (forwards) we have in the prospect pipeline, which might be a stronger argument for the current GM being gone.
And I guess the question I have comes back to what do you mean by they're declining? Do they have to be PPG forwards? If they're merely 70-point guys but will be for a couple more years and then slowing into the 60s, upper 50s by the time they're 33-34, is that still OK? Or are you thinking they're going to hit 30, 31 and be merely 55-point guys, tailing off every year from there? Because a lot of assumptions about what to do in the future relies on what you think guys are going to do over the next 3, 4, 5, 6 years so you know what decisions you want to be making now in anticipation of that.
Snubbed4Vezina
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2022
- 2,441
- 4,303
I've liked what I've seen from Lindstein at the U20 tournament and I could certainly be proven wrong by Lindstein 7-8 seasons down the line but I'm taking the more certain thing. Sanheim has been fantastic for the Flyers this season.
i don't disagree, i just think lots of folks are so over krug that they act like sanheim would solve so many of our problems. he doesn't. he is more of a sure thing as top 4 guy than lindstein bc he is already doing it, but it's certainly possible this works out for us is all i'm saying. lindstein is heckuva consolation prize.
ezcreepin
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2016
- 2,713
- 2,477
Say what you want about it, arguably the most important thing about success in the postseason is getting to the postseason. Without continued winning in the regular season, the point is moot. Also, besides the Blues and Bruins, the rest of the winning teams in the 2010s had undoubtedly elite talents in their positions back-boning their runs. Kane Toews, Hossa, Kopitar, Doughty, Quick, Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kucherov, Stamkos, Hedman, Vasilevskiy. The Blues MAYBE had two in Petro and Tarasenko (O'Reilly in his first appearance with the Blues), but Tarasenko was not the prime version we saw against Chicago and our deep run that ended against San Jose. So for a mid market team drafting in the mid-late 20s nearly every year, I'd say the job was done well. The team was never going to be elite without incredible drafting, great trades, or tanking for a few top 5/10 picks yet we still have a championship.
- Status
