2024-2025 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread.

[Brian39]

I think our contending window opens in 3 years minimum. The team needs a way better defense and I also think Broberg is a future #1. He is just now being allowed to play, so his overall development is a little behind. He hasn't been stunted. All is good with Broby.

After him, Lindstein and Jiricek are the top two prospects on D.

Jiricek will not turn pro until the end of his junior season in 2026, at the earliest. Lindstein needs at least one more season in Sweden (Brynas is not in danger of being relegated) and then at least one in the AHL.

I think DA will trade for a young stud on D and will pay a premium price for him.

Parayko will be the elder statesman as Lindstein and Jiricek grow up on the blue line, while Broberg will be the young veteran. DA needs to identify another Broberg-aged player.

This is how I see the blue line/contending window playing out. The real Cup window might not open for another 4-5 years, unless DA can bring in two more up and comers. We need one or two wildcards to develop in Fischer, Burns or Ralph and the others.

Lots of moving parts and a lot needs to go right for a true Cup window to open.

Does that calculation mean that you think the earliest opening is January of 2028 (so potential contenders in the 2027/28 season) or that 2028/29 is the earliest potential window? Not that it makes a huge difference philosophically, I'm just curious since timelines of years are a bit muddy when we're smack dab in the middle of a season.

Either way, I disagree that the team needs a way better defense and that it is years away from potentially being contender-caliber. I'd have 100% overwhelmingly agreed 6 months ago, but we have dramatically changed the group since then. Early results with the Fowler-Parayko pair suggest that we have gotten pretty damn close to rebuilding the blueline back to something that is good enough to exist on a contender.

6 months ago our top 4 D group was Parayko, Leddy, Faulk, and Krug.

Today it is Parayko, Fowler, Broberg, and Faulk.

It's hard to say the exact asset cost since we had to make a deal with the Pens to get our 2nd rounder back and made a 'future considerations' side deal with Edmonton, but the overall net cost was in the ballpark of two 2nd round picks and a 3rd round pick to get Broberg and Fowler at a combined $8.58M against the cap for this year and next. Broberg is about $2M cheaper than Krug's $6.5M that's on LTIR and Fowler is the same cost as Leddy (whose future is very unclear). That is a pretty modest asset spend AND cap spend to drastically alter the short-to-medium term outlook of the blueline.

The sample is small, but the Blues have the 2nd best xGA per 60 at 5 on 5 since Fowler got here. 7th in scoring chances against per 60. 2nd in high danger chances against per 60 and 6th in actual goals against per 60.

Fowler and Parayko have positive underlying metrics despite a heavy defensive lean in usage against very high quality of competition. They are going out against the other team's best lines and we are winning the battle when they are out there. They are both contributing offense at the rate of a legitimately good top pair. Again, the sample size is small, but they very much look like a legit top pair based on my eye test. Broberg has looked like a legit 2nd pair guy in that timeframe as well. Not sure if he's looked like a true #3 in this sample as he did at times earlier in the year, but he's absolutely been better than Faulk while the pair gets legit 2nd pair results/metrics.

Are Fowler and Parayko going to be a legit top pair for years on end? Of course not. But it very well might last long enough to bridge the gap for when Broberg is ready to make the jump from 2nd pair guy to top pair guy (on his way to becoming the #1 you hope for). I think there is a real argument that Parayko, Fowler, and Broberg can get you 3 out of 4 pieces of a contending-caliber top 4 D group through Fowler's remaining contract. Broberg is at the age/stage of development where I can see him improving at largely the same rate of Fowler's decline.

Overall, the rapid overhaul of the D demonstrates why I'm hesitant to just agree that there are 'minimum' timelines that are years out. Faulk's trade protection moves to a 15 team no trade list this summer and he is only owed $9M total real dollars for the last 2 years of his deal. That contract shouldn't be impossible (or prohibitively expensive) to get out of if we want. But we also have the cap space to simply use him as an overpaid 3rd pairing guy if we bring in a vet to upgrade the right side of the 2nd pair.

We're multiple seasons away from the potential time when the D group is contending quality with Jiricek and Lindstein both playing major roles. But we aren't simply stuck waiting for that before we can get contending quality play from the D group. Faulk has struggled long enough that I'm convinced we would need an upgrade to him for the 2nd pair. But Army has demonstrated in the last 6 months that it is possible to do that without obliterating your futures war chest. We have a surplus of young wing futures, we hold all our future 1st round picks, and we have a lot of cap flexibility. I'm not buying an argument that the D is years away from being good enough.

 

[PocketNines]

What is going on with Parayko and Fowler should fundamentally be stuck to Dum Lyschyshcyhnscyhbsn as an argument that he should retire and never talk about hockey again because he is a shallow end boy and always was. His take on Parayko was white hot stupid at every moment of its arc and he should be hounded over it, it is that bad.

If it takes Lindstein until his D+5 to play for the Blues something went really wrong with him. He is in the middle of his D+2 and his defining feature is poise. If he will be in the SHL 1.5 more years and then 1 year in the AHL then we have to admit it was a bad 1st round pick. (Which it is not.)

 

[Majorityof1]

Does that calculation mean that you think the earliest opening is January of 2028 (so potential contenders in the 2027/28 season) or that 2028/29 is the earliest potential window? Not that it makes a huge difference philosophically, I'm just curious since timelines of years are a bit muddy when we're smack dab in the middle of a season.

Either way, I disagree that the team needs a way better defense and that it is years away from potentially being contender-caliber. That was 100% overwhelmingly accurate 6 months ago, but we have dramatically changed the group since then. Early results with the Fowler-Parayko pair suggest that we have gotten pretty damn close to rebuilding the blueline back to something that is good enough to exist on a contender.

6 months ago our top 4 D group was Parayko, Leddy, Faulk, and Krug.

Today it is Parayko, Fowler, Broberg, and Faulk.

It's hard to say the exact asset cost since we had to make a deal with the Pens to get our 2nd rounder back and made a 'future considerations' side deal with Edmonton, but the overall net cost was in the ballpark of two 2nd round picks and a 3rd round pick to get Broberg and Fowler at a combined $8.58M against the cap for this year and next. Broberg is about $2.5M cheaper than Krug's $6.5M that's on LTIR and Fowler is the same cost as Leddy (whose future is very unclear). That is a pretty modest asset spend AND cap spend to drastically alter the short-to-medium term outlook of the blueline.

The sample is small, but the Blues have the 2nd best xGA per 60 at 5 on 5 since Fowler got here. 7th in scoring chances against per 60. 2nd in high danger chances against per 60 and 6th in actual goals against per 60.

Fowler and Parayko have positive underlying metrics despite a heavy defensive lean in usage against very high quality of competition. They are going out against the other team's best lines and we are winning the battle when they are out there. They are both contributing offense at the rate of a legitimately good top pair. Again, the sample size is small, but they very much look like a legit top pair based on my eye test. Broberg has looked like a legit 2nd pair guy in that timeframe as well. Not sure if he's looked like a true #3 in this sample as he did at times earlier in the year, but he's absolutely been better than Faulk while the pair gets legit 2nd pair results/metrics.

Are Fowler and Parayko going to be a legit top pair for years on end? Of course not. But it very well might last long enough to bridge the gap for when Broberg is ready to make the jump from 2nd pair guy to top pair guy (on his way to becoming the #1 you hope for). I think there is a real argument that Parayko, Fowler, and Broberg can get you 3 out of 4 pieces of a contending-caliber top 4 D group through Fowler's remaining contract. Broberg is at the age/stage of development where I can see him improving at largely the same rate of Fowler's decline.

Overall, the rapid overhaul of the D demonstrates why I'm hesitant to just agree that there are 'minimum' timelines that are years out. Faulk's trade protection moves to a 15 team no trade list this summer and he is only owed $9M total real dollars for the last 2 years of his deal. That contract shouldn't be impossible (or prohibitively expensive) to get out of if we want. But we also have the cap space to simply use him as an overpaid 3rd pairing guy if we bring in a vet to upgrade the right side of the 2nd pair.

We're multiple seasons away from the potential time when the D group is contending quality with Jiricek and Lindstein playing major roles. But we aren't simply stuck waiting for that before we can get contending quality play from the D group. Faulk has struggled long enough that I'm convinced we would need an upgrade to him for the 2nd pair. But Army has demonstrated in the last 6 months that it is possible to do that without obliterating your futures war chest. We have a surplus of young wing futures, we hold all our future 1st round picks, and we have a lot of cap flexibility. I'm not buying an argument that the D is years away from being good enough.

Fowler, a key piece to the rebuilt D has 1 more year left after this one

1) Will we be able to fix other issues to be a competitor by next year?

2) Will we re-sign Fowler at 35?

3) How long will he continue to bring this level of play if we do?

Broberg may grow into a top pair, but that is not a gurantee. We'll still have to add a top 4 once he steps into Fowlers role if we don't keep Fowler. Even with Fowler now, we still aren't good enough to compete. There are too many other issues.

Unless we make some shrewd off season moves or 2 or more prospects take a big step, I don't see us being ultra competitive in a short timeline.

 

[SirPaste]

What is going on with Parayko and Fowler should fundamentally be stuck to Dum Lyschyshcyhnscyhbsn as an argument that he should retire and never talk about hockey again because he is a shallow end boy and always was. His take on Parayko was white hot stupid at every moment of its arc and he should be hounded over it, it is that bad.

If it takes Lindstein until his D+5 to play for the Blues something went really wrong with him. He is in the middle of his D+2 and his defining feature is poise. If he will be in the SHL 1.5 more years and then 1 year in the AHL then we have to admit it was a bad 1st round pick. (Which it is not.)

I agree with this, he should be in the AHL next year then if everything goes well getting a taste with the NHL club the following season if not at the end of next year depending on where the team is. There is no reason for him to spend another year in Sweden, he needs to get over to NA and start getting acclimated to the NA style of game. If he spends another year in Sweden I would start worrying that it was a bad pick.

 

[PocketNines]

I agree with this, he should be in the AHL next year then if everything goes well getting a taste with the NHL club the following season if not at the end of next year depending on where the team is. There is no reason for him to spend another year in Sweden, he needs to get over to NA and start getting acclimated to the NA style of game. If he spends another year in Sweden I would start worrying that it was a bad pick.

I think Lindstein & Fowler are timed fairly perfectly, with hopefully Broberg taking on more load as Lindstein integrates into the lineup. Then, with the rough-and-tumblers at LD coming through the pipeline, we are really good on LD

 

[Brian39]

Fowler, a key piece to the rebuilt D has 1 more year left after this one

Yes, that would be the short term we're talking about. Put another way, roughly half of the time being written off as impossible to contend.

1) Will we be able to fix other issues to be a competitor by next year?

'Will we do that' is very different than 'it is impossible to do that.'

2) Will we re-sign Fowler at 35?

He'll be 34 entering his age 35 season and I have no clue. If he's interested in staying on a deal that reflects a diminishing role then maybe. If not then I doubt it. Not signing him wouldn't preclude us from adding another piece (or pieces) from outside the organization to support our current players though. And as discussed, it is possible to add such pieces without crippling yourself elsewhere.

3) How long will he continue to bring this level of play if we do?

Not beyond 35, which is why signing him to an extension is wholly unknown.

Broberg may grow into a top pair, but that is not a gurantee.

Of course not. There are no guarantees with prospects. But again, "this will happen' is different than 'it will take at least this long before anything could happen.' There is similarly not a guarantee that any plan will be successful.

We'll still have to add a top 4 once he steps into Fowlers role if we don't keep Fowler.

Correct. Which Army has repeatedly demonstrated is achievable without giving up your premium assets.

Even with Fowler now, we still aren't good enough to compete. There are too many other issues.

The team overall hasn't, but the D has been.

We can work to improve all areas over the next 12 months too. We don't have to pick between improving one aspect or another. The defense is getting the job done at the moment though. It has absolutely been more than good enough to compete.

Unless we make some shrewd off season moves or 2 or more prospects take a big step, I don't see us being ultra competitive in a short timeline.

Yes, which is the point. I agree with there being a minimum timeline if we just sit around and wait. But that is not the only thing we can do as an organization. I don't believe there is a minimum timeline because we have made shrewd moves and can continue to do so. Army has made multiple shrewd moves in the very recent past.

Broberg was a shrewd move.

Holloway was a shrewd move.

Monty was a shrewd move.

Fowler was a shrewd move.

That's 4 such moves in the last 5 months. Two of them were in-season. None of them cost us any of our top 10 futures assets and neither made a sizeable decrease to our cap flexibility. We still have plenty of assets and flexibility to continue making shrewd moves.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

Fowler, a key piece to the rebuilt D has 1 more year left after this one

1) Will we be able to fix other issues to be a competitor by next year?

2) Will we re-sign Fowler at 35?

3) How long will he continue to bring this level of play if we do?

Broberg may grow into a top pair, but that is not a gurantee. We'll still have to add a top 4 once he steps into Fowlers role if we don't keep Fowler. Even with Fowler now, we still aren't good enough to compete. There are too many other issues.

Unless we make some shrewd off season moves or 2 or more prospects take a big step, I don't see us being ultra competitive in a short timeline.

1) With the top four defense solidifying and Dvorsky coming up as 3C what other moves do you want? Schenn could fall off more but hopefully he slips to 3C as Dvorsky moves up to 2C. Hopefully Bolduc eventually gets top six minutes and replaces Saad on Thomas wing. We need more secondary scoring form the third line and fourth line hopefully Dvorsky helps fix this but a 3rd/4th line revamp is easily done by DA in the offseason.

2) We resigned Bouwmeester at 32/33 for 5 years then resigned him to a 1 year deal at 36/37. I don’t see how we couldn’t do the same with Flower whether it is a 1 year or multiple year deal.

3) Fowler could slip down to second pairing as he declines? He doesn’t seem to be over reliant on skating the puck out of the zone like Bouwmeester was. Bouwmeester had to have the hip surgery if I remember correctly, and his decline in skating in 2017 and 2018 made him a temporary whipping boy here on the forums. Hard to predict the future but Folwer looks very balanced in how he moves and passes. I think he will age well.

I more bullish on next season. I think the biggest step we need is from Dvorsky. Bolduc looks good and it’s only a matter of time before he is given a chance on Thomas wing. Sorting out a winger for the third line and changes to the fourth line should be easily done by DA and no big lift.

 

[LGB]

I agree with this, he should be in the AHL next year then if everything goes well getting a taste with the NHL club the following season if not at the end of next year depending on where the team is. There is no reason for him to spend another year in Sweden, he needs to get over to NA and start getting acclimated to the NA style of game. If he spends another year in Sweden I would start worrying that it was a bad pick.

Why would it worry you if he spent another year in Sweden? If he plays well in the second half of this season and it looks like he will be a top defenseman for Brynas next year I think that would be a perfectly good situation for him to develop.

 

[SirPaste]

Why would it worry you if he spent another year in Sweden? If he plays well in the second half of this season and it looks like he will be a top defenseman for Brynas next year I think that would be a perfectly good situation for him to develop.

A first round pick spending the next 3 seasons playing overseas just isn't a normal trajectory. It would be beneficial for him to get over to NA and spend a season playing in the AHL to get acclimated to the NA style of play and to play with our other prospects before trying to crack the NHL roster.

 

[LGB]

A first round pick spending the next 3 seasons playing overseas just isn't a normal trajectory. It would be beneficial for him to get over to NA and spend a season playing in the AHL to get acclimated to the NA style of play and to play with our other prospects before trying to crack the NHL roster.

Not all first round picks are the same. He was the 29th pick. I would be perfectly happy with him playing in the AHL next year, but I don't think it's a bad sign if he plays in the SHL assuming he is slotted to play a big role.

 

[Majorityof1]

Yes, that would be the short term we're talking about. Put another way, roughly half of the time being written off as impossible to contend.

'Will we do that' is very different than 'it is impossible to do that.'


He'll be 34 entering his age 35 season and I have no clue. If he's interested in staying on a deal that reflects a diminishing role then maybe. If not then I doubt it. Not signing him wouldn't preclude us from adding another piece (or pieces) from outside the organization to support our current players though. And as discussed, it is possible to add such pieces without crippling yourself elsewhere.


Not beyond 35, which is why signing him to an extension is wholly unknown.

Of course not. There are no guarantees with prospects. But again, "this will happen' is different than 'it will take at least this long before anything could happen.' There is similarly not a guarantee that any plan will be successful.


Correct. Which Army has repeatedly demonstrated is achievable without giving up your premium assets.


The team overall hasn't, but the D has been.

We can work to improve all areas over the next 12 months too. We don't have to pick between improving one aspect or another. The defense is getting the job done at the moment though. It has absolutely been more than good enough to compete.


Yes, which is the point. I agree with there being a minimum timeline if we just sit around and wait. But that is not the only thing we can do as an organization. I don't believe there is a minimum timeline because we have made shrewd moves and can continue to do so. Army has made multiple shrewd moves in the very recent past.

Broberg was a shrewd move.

Holloway was a shrewd move.

Monty was a shrewd move.

Fowler was a shrewd move.

That's 4 such moves in the last 5 months. Two of them were in-season. None of them cost us any of our top 10 futures assets and neither made a sizeable decrease to our cap flexibility. We still have plenty of assets and flexibility to continue making shrewd moves.

Broberg and Holliway were shrewd moves. Monty probably was. Although that has not fully played out since despite getting Thomas back and adding Fowler, we aren't much better than under Bannister.

My contention is still that Fowler wasn't a shrewd move. Great player, cheap cost. Still If we move on from Fowler without making noise in the playoffs this year or next, how was that shrewd?

Finishing 13 to 16th is the absolute worst result to a season. That's what these shrewd moves got us, and I don't see another move that will change that in the short term without trading or blocking our best prospects.

We'll see what happens though. I never saw the offer sheets coming so I could be wrong

 

[Majorityof1]

1) With the top four defense solidifying and Dvorsky coming up as 3C what other moves do you want? Schenn could fall off more but hopefully he slips to 3C as Dvorsky moves up to 2C. Hopefully Bolduc eventually gets top six minutes and replaces Saad on Thomas wing. We need more secondary scoring form the third line and fourth line hopefully Dvorsky helps fix this but a 3rd/4th line revamp is easily done by DA in the offseason.

2) We resigned Bouwmeester at 32/33 for 5 years then resigned him to a 1 year deal at 36/37. I don’t see how we couldn’t do the same with Flower whether it is a 1 year or multiple year deal.

3) Fowler could slip down to second pairing as he declines? He doesn’t seem to be over reliant on skating the puck out of the zone like Bouwmeester was. Bouwmeester had to have the hip surgery if I remember correctly, and his decline in skating in 2017 and 2018 made him a temporary whipping boy here on the forums. Hard to predict the future but Folwer looks very balanced in how he moves and passes. I think he will age well.

I more bullish on next season. I think the biggest step we need is from Dvorsky. Bolduc looks good and it’s only a matter of time before he is given a chance on Thomas wing. Sorting out a winger for the third line and changes to the fourth line should be easily done by DA and no big lift.

I've gone over my thoughts in a previous post but...

Our forwards and our D are on reverse trends. Dvorsky won't be a 2C next year. We need a few years for these prospects to fully realize their role and potential. Our D will age further with 3 of top 4 D nearing or past the apex of their career trajectory. I want to move on from 32 year old D not double down on them

So while we fixed our D, will they still be there when our forwards are ready to compete?

 

[PocketNines]

Fowler as a bridge to Lindstein is one of the smartest things Doug Armstrong has done

 

[PocketNines]

Not all first round picks are the same. He was the 29th pick. I would be perfectly happy with him playing in the AHL next year, but I don't think it's a bad sign if he plays in the SHL assuming he is slotted to play a big role.

Why would you assume he'd be slotted to play a big role at 20 but not 19?

And this player who is ultrapoised, is the player you think needs even more development than the average late first rounder post draft? Can you explain that? Why would the number in the draft he was taken be more important than the current quality of his play?

 

[LGB]

Why would you assume he'd be slotted to play a big role at 20 but not 19?

And this player who is ultrapoised, is the player you think needs even more development than the average late first rounder post draft? Can you explain that? Why would the number in the draft he was taken be more important than the current quality of his play?

I would hope like any young player he gets better and earns more trust with the coaching staff.

The question isn't whether or not he needs more development. I don't see anyone advocating for him to play in the NHL next year. The SHL is arguably a harder league than the AHL. I personally don't care where he was taken. I'm just saying it isn't "bad" that he's spending his D+3 in the SHL because a lot of the higher first round picks in the past didn't. His current quality of play doesn't exactly scream he's too good for the SHL.

 

[PocketNines]

I would hope like any young player he gets better and earns more trust with the coaching staff.

The question isn't whether or not he needs more development. I don't see anyone advocating for him to play in the NHL next year. The SHL is arguably a harder league than the AHL. I personally don't care where he was taken. I'm just saying it isn't "bad" that he's spending his D+3 in the SHL because a lot of the higher first round picks in the past didn't. His current quality of play doesn't exactly scream he's too good for the SHL.

His coach said he sees the Forsling in him with his current quality of play. We are just arguing that it doesn't square "this is a super poised player under pressure in his D+2 season, which is against men" with "everything is progressing as planned" if he's getting low minutes this year, low minutes next year then coming over to the small rink at the start of his D+4. You're holding his stats as proxy for play, and holding that against him it seems. But it's been widely discussed the SHL prospects don't get the development minutes they would in NA.

I am not too worried about it since I think the Blues are pleased with his development and want him in NA sooner rather than later. I do think it's a warning sign if he spends all of 25-26 in Sweden because he looks really good already. I am a little hopeful he still comes over this year if he can get into Springfield's lineup.

 

[Brian39]

Broberg and Holliway were shrewd moves. Monty probably was. Although that has not fully played out since despite getting Thomas back and adding Fowler, we aren't much better than under Bannister.

We earned 19 points through 22 games under Bannister with a .432 points percentage that was 26th in the NHL. We have earned 27 points in 23 games under Monty with a .587 points percentage that is 12th in the league over that stretch. That's the difference between a 71 point pace and a 96 point pace.
The improvement through Monty's first 23 games has been drastically better than the improvement through Berube's first 23 games in 2018/19. The Blues were on pace for 73 points when they fired Yeo and played at an 82 point pace for Berube's first 23 games. Going from a .432 points percentage to a .587 points percentage is massive improvement.

We had a -22 goal differential under Bannister. We have a +14 goal differential under Monty.

We scored 2.36 goals per game under Bannister (30th in the league). We have scored 3.22 goals per game under Monty (8th in the league)

We allowed 3.36 goals per game under Bannister (25th in the league). We have allowed 2.61 goals per game under Monty (9th in the league).

Our xGF% at 5 on 5 was 45.86% (26th in the league). It is 51.21% under Monty (13th in the league).

Both the results and underlying numbers have substantially improved since the coaching change. We played like a bottom 7 team under Bannister and we've played like an above average team under Monty. It is simply not true that we haven't been much better than we were under Bannister.

My contention is still that Fowler wasn't a shrewd move. Great player, cheap cost. Still If we move on from Fowler without making noise in the playoffs this year or next, how was that shrewd?

Finishing 13 to 16th is the absolute worst result to a season.

I vehemently disagree that the team demonstrating massive improvement but being unable to dig out of the early hole is the absolute worst result to a season. The climb from 'not close to good enough' to 'contender' doesn't happen overnight, from one player, or from one single transaction. You have to make multiple acquisitions and upgrades. I have zero issue with the draft pick falling 5-10 positions if it did so because we upgraded at coach, saw development from multiple key young guys, kept the goalies we trust, and improved the supporting cast around the shifting core.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

I've gone over my thoughts in a previous post but...

Our forwards and our D are on reverse trends. Dvorsky won't be a 2C next year. We need a few years for these prospects to fully realize theur role and potential. Our D will age further with 3 of top 4 D nearing or past the apex of their career trajectory. I want to move on from 32 year old D not double down on them

So while we fixed our D, will they still be there when our forwards are ready to compete?

Agreed the reverse trends is not ideal. In a perfect rebuild you build from the net out as defense and goalies take longer to mature. Where I disagree with you is the fixation with a top 10 pick this year is a must have for the re-whatever any pick we get wether 6-10 or 10-16 isn’t going to be ready NHL ready for 3-4 years. Add a few years after that for NHL seasoning. It’s better to try and compete now than bank everything on acquiring more draft stock.

Having an aging D core isn’t ideal but I see no way to fix it unless a bonafide 1D becomes an available. If the D core is failing when our forwards are ready we will have to adjust…we never could find a 1C until we found ROR.

I also agree that any move we make for a 2C or 3C stop gap will block Dvorsky and is not ideal. So hopefully he hits the ground running.

 

[TheOrganist]

MJ1 really just contended that the jury is still out if we are a better hockey club under Monty than BANNISTER. Wow. L-O-L.