2024-2025 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread.

[LetsGoBooze]

This team just lacks having enough current high end talent on the NHL roster to truly compete. No coach is gonna fix that. We have and will continue to be in a holding pattern until not only the kids start making the roster, but truly start impacting the roster in a big way. I expect massive growing pains the next two years with many ups and downs with so much of a youth infusion. This team is exactly where i expected them this season and i expect a similar outcome next year, possibly a few more wins if we get better goalie play, but we'll prolly be back in that lower 8-15 range once more, outside of the playoffs. I plan on being patient and enjoying the growth of our youth. DA has stated he views our re-tool having started at the 2023 draft, so we're not even 2 years into it. If he can get us back to being a perrienial playoff team in 4-5 total re-tool years, that is a massive success and quick turn around compared to a burn it to the ground re-build. I preach patience, there is a vision.

 

[BlueMed]

No. I think it was unfortunate, but Montgomery was Army's guy. I get it. I even agree with it. My point is a) Bannister was not the disaster some make him out to be, b) Montgomery is not some instant-fix band aid that is going to take us to the promise land as some thought he might be. c) the difference between the team's play has as much or more to do with personnel than coaching. d) Montgomery is fallible and can make mistakes.

I've been too busy to read every post, but I think most reasonable people probably agree with A, B, and D. It seems like there is disagreement about C, but it's very difficult to tease out the effects of Bannister alone vs the absence of Broberg + Thomas at the same time given that both scenarios occurred simultaneously. I don't care to argue for one or the other because at this point, does it really matter? The coach moving forward for the next 5 years is Monty, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that he is perfect.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don't know what you even mean by throwing good money after bad. I am never going to moderate my takes or stop speaking my mind because others don't like or disagree with what I have to say. There is a handy ignore button if you don't like it.

Bannister coached us to a better record last year with a poorer team than Montgomery has this year. That is what he did to prove he could be an NHL coach. He coached a pretty poor team to a .602 win percentage over 50 games. People are being disingenuous. They retroactively putting all the blame the players playing poorly at the start of the season on Bannister and have switched to saying it's100% the players fault we are losing under Montgomery as they have no heart. The same players, minus all the ones Bannister didn't have. Even Monty has said he needs to motivate them better. But this board, they have no heart at all, and you can't win without heart...except when Bannister was coaching, that is his fault..

You want me to put you on ignore? Really? I’m starting to think my run on this forum has gone too long and I’m just here to annoy people now. I thought we were having a conversation.

Let me express my argument one last way. And don’t weasel out of this saying we don’t have enough information or you have no way to know. I know it’s a guess. I won’t even respond to it. Your guess is as good as mine, literally.

The Blues are 23-24-4 today. If nothing else changed with personnel, injuries, roster but Bannister had stayed as head coach for the duration, what is your best guess of what the record would be today? No rebuttal or criticism of your prediction, I just want to know where you think he would have the team with the same crap to try and make a stew from.

I’ll be stunned if you think he’d have done better. I’ll be surprised if you think he’d have done equally well. If the coaching move WAS an upgrade at the position for the Blues, what exactly is your point? We can all see this roster needs more. No coach is going to get them close to what we’ve seen from successful playoff teams, this year. I think the enthusiasm is mainly for seeing one less missing puzzle piece to get from where they are now, to a legit contender. Montgomery did remarkable things with that Boston team. It was an historical regular season just a couple years ago. The number of head coaches who have led an NHL team to that kind of season is extreeemely short.

 

[Majorityof1]

You want me to put you on ignore? Really? I’m starting to think my run on this forum has gone too long and I’m just here to annoy people now. I thought we were having a conversation.

Let me express my argument one last way. And don’t weasel out of this saying we don’t have enough information, or you have no way to know. I know it’s a guess. I won’t even respond to it. Your guess is as good as mine, literally.

The Blues are 23-24-4 today. If nothing else changed with personnel, injuries, roster but Bannister had stayed as head coach for the duration, what is your best guess of what the record would be today? No rebuttal or criticism of your prediction, I just want to know where you think he would have the team with the same crap to try and make a stew from.

I’ll be stunned if you think he’d have done better. I’ll be surprised if you think he’d have done equally well. If the coaching move WAS an upgrade at the position for the Blues, what exactly is your point? We can all see this roster needs more. No coach is going to get them close to what we’ve seen from successful playoff teams, this year. I think the enthusiasm is mainly for seeing one less missing puzzle piece to get from where they are now, to a legit contender. Montgomery did remarkable things with that Boston team. It was an historical regular season just a couple years ago. The number of head coaches who have led an NHL team to that kind of season is extreeemely short.

I didn't understand your point about good money after bad, but it sounds like (not just you) posters are sick of this line of discussion from me. But I post what I want and anyone who doesn't like it, they can put me on ignore. We've clashed several times but I like you, and like engaging with you. So, I hope you don't. I just also know I can be grating so I offer the option.

As to your question, I do not think we would be better. The new coach bump for one was a real thing. It really only lasted 5 games, but 9 points out of 10 from a team that literally has not won 3 in a row all year is big.

I also have admitted that I didn't like how overly defensive Bannister coached the team at the start of the season. I think that was in response to personnel. Our entire left side was suspect. He potentially knowing Leddy wasn't 100%, had a 40-yr old bought out twice and a youngster who spent much of the past year in the AHL being given a big role. He was preaching defense, defense, defense, to everyone including forwards and it had us on our heels too much. But I think given time he would have made adjustments, just not as quickly as Montgomery could coming in as a new coach.

So if I had to guess, I'd say he'd have been at a .480-500 point capture? An improvement on how he was doing and basically how Monty has done outside the new coach bump. That would yield 47 points vs 50 now. Maybe a bit less. But not a ton of difference.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Last years team wasn’t as good as its record. It had great goaltending, almost no injuries, and won a lot of one goal games. This years team has had more injuries, worse goaltending, and generally less luck. We have more talent but are worse team. That was always most likely outcome this year, regardless of whether we kept bannister. Monty is a better coach but he isn’t a miracle worker.

 

[Reality Czech]

I’ve said this for years… we rely on .930 save % nightly to win games, and when we don’t get it, we lose.

So you're saying it's all Binnington's fault, got it

 

[TheDizee]

Buch?


I mean, we're pretty much out of it. We'd have to go something like 21-8-2 the rest of the season, and that doesn't even guarantee a playoff spot. You'd be asking a .490 p% team to play at a .710 p% pace. Maybe slightly lower if a few teams help us out (COL, CGY, VAN, potentially MIN).

Doubt it was Buch actually, he had not signed his massive new contract.

 

[Xerloris]

This team just lacks having enough current high end talent on the NHL roster to truly compete. No coach is gonna fix that. We have and will continue to be in a holding pattern until not only the kids start making the roster, but truly start impacting the roster in a big way. I expect massive growing pains the next two years with many ups and downs with so much of a youth infusion. This team is exactly where i expected them this season and i expect a similar outcome next year, possibly a few more wins if we get better goalie play, but we'll prolly be back in that lower 8-15 range once more, outside of the playoffs. I plan on being patient and enjoying the growth of our youth. DA has stated he views our re-tool having started at the 2023 draft, so we're not even 2 years into it. If he can get us back to being a perrienial playoff team in 4-5 total re-tool years, that is a massive success and quick turn around compared to a burn it to the ground re-build. I preach patience, there is a vision.

I don't believe that. Our cup team did not have an abundance of high end talent, just players willing to work and grind hard in the O-zone. That's what we're lacking but you are right, we don't have enough high end talent to play the way they are trying to play. We need to get into the O-zone and grind but we're not doing that.

 

[Mike Liut]

So you're saying it's all Binnington's fault, got it

Quite the contrary

 

[Reality Czech]

Quite the contrary

I was joking I knew what you meant

 

[Majorityof1]

Last years team wasn’t as good as its record. It had great goaltending, almost no injuries, and won a lot of one goal games. This years team has had more injuries, worse goaltending, and generally less luck. We have more talent but are worse team. That was always most likely outcome this year, regardless of whether we kept bannister. Monty is a better coach but he is pant a miracle worker.

What injuries have we had that started under Monty? Only Krug, Leddy, Thomas, Faksa and Broberg missed significant time to injury as far as I can remember.

Broberg came back soon after Monty started, Thomas missed all his games under Bannister and Leddy/krug have just been out all year. Holloway missed like a game to the puck in the neck, but bounced back quickly. Faulk's missed 2 twice but that's a blessing. Faksa is the other one, due to his cut. That hurt as he is a C but he's also a 4th liner

Aside from the big year long losses of Krug and Leddy, we've been relatively Injury free under Monty and the big loss, Leddy was replaced and more by Fowler. Krug replaced and more by Broberg.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

What injuries have we had that started under Monty? Only Krug, Leddy, Thomas, Faksa and Broberg missed significant time to injury as far as I can remember.

Broberg came back soon after Monty started, Thomas missed all his games under Bannister and Leddy/krug have just been out all year. Holloway missed like a game to the puck in the neck, but bounced back quickly. Faulk's missed 2 twice but that's a blessing. Faksa is the other one, due to his cut. That hurt as he is a C but he's also a 4th liner

Aside from the big year long losses of Krug and Leddy, we've been relatively Injury free under Monty and the big loss, Leddy was replaced and more by Fowler. Krug replaced and more by Broberg.

Not sure what point you are trying to refute. look at all the injuries you mentioned. That is every decent d but Parayko, 2 of 3 best centers, etc. Much worse than last year. I never said they got hurt under Monty just that we have worse record than last year on good part due to injuries.

 

[Majorityof1]

Not sure what point you are trying to refute. look at all the injuries you mentioned. That is every decent d but Parayko, 2 of 3 best centers, etc. Much worse than last year. I never said they got hurt under Monty just that we have worse record than last year on good part due to injuries.

I thought you were making the point in reference to my comparison of Bannister coming in as new coach last year, and Monty this year. Making the excuse that Monty's start was less successful due to injuries.

My bad. I go too wrapped up in my own argument on here

 

[Buttonwood]

Question from non-Blues fan: is Krug expected back next year or LTIR rest of career?

 

[SirPaste]

Question from non-Blues fan: is Krug expected back next year or LTIR rest of career?

Nobody really knows for sure but most of us assume LTIRetired

 

[Majorityof1]

Question from non-Blues fan: is Krug expected back next year or LTIR rest of career?

They spoke like they expect him back eventually., However, nobody has ever played hockey again after this surgery. Fans expect him to be LTIRetired. Blues moves seem to indicate that as well with the trade for Fowler and Broberg and Leddy still signed (although injured as well).

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

This team just lacks having enough current high end talent on the NHL roster to truly compete. No coach is gonna fix that. We have and will continue to be in a holding pattern until not only the kids start making the roster, but truly start impacting the roster in a big way. I expect massive growing pains the next two years with many ups and downs with so much of a youth infusion. This team is exactly where i expected them this season and i expect a similar outcome next year, possibly a few more wins if we get better goalie play, but we'll prolly be back in that lower 8-15 range once more, outside of the playoffs. I plan on being patient and enjoying the growth of our youth. DA has stated he views our re-tool having started at the 2023 draft, so we're not even 2 years into it. If he can get us back to being a perrienial playoff team in 4-5 total re-tool years, that is a massive success and quick turn around compared to a burn it to the ground re-build. I preach patience, there is a vision.

Exactly. If you broke down every position into Elite, Very Good, Good, Average, and Below Average tiers, our best players would likely fit in third tier of talents. As good as Robert Thomas has been, he's probably in that 15-20 range of centers and he's our best forward.

Some of these players can level up and play elite/very good levels of hockey, but it's not consistent. Our best forwards disappear far too often. And our defense, though improved, still needs work. Goaltending has been inconsistent at best this season which complicates matters even worse. Neither Binnington nor Hofer are stealing games for us this year.

It's a very average team playing an average level of hockey. We're in a lull right now and things will improve, but when they do, it's not going to sustain.

To steal the words of Dennis Green, "They are who we thought they were." With the coaching change and Fowler trade we had hopes for more, but I see a team that's playing up to it's current talent level.

 

[Brian39]

I don't know what you even mean by throwing good money after bad. I am never going to moderate my takes or stop speaking my mind because others don't like or disagree with what I have to say. There is a handy ignore button if you don't like it.

Bannister coached us to a better record last year with a poorer team than Montgomery has this year. That is what he did to prove he could be an NHL coach. He coached a pretty poor team to a .602 win percentage over 50 games. People are being disingenuous. They retroactively putting all the blame the players playing poorly at the start of the season on Bannister and have switched to saying it's100% the players fault we are losing under Montgomery as they have no heart. The same players, minus all the ones Bannister didn't have. Even Monty has said he needs to motivate them better. But this board, they have no heart at all, and you can't win without heart...except when Bannister was coaching, that is his fault..

And you are consistently ignoring that the goaltending was dramatically better last year.

Last year the goalies stopped 27 goals above expected according to Moneypuck. They are -5 so far this season. That's a massive difference. The raw SV% has dropped from .913 to .900. Any way you slice it, the goalies' play this year is directly responsible for about 20 extra goals against so far vs their play last year. That doesn't mean that the goalies suck this year or are tanking the season. But they are objectively playing much worse than last year when they were a clear top 5 tandem in the league.

That unambiguously impacts the year-to-year record and I very much don't see anything suggesting that their play is tied to the head coach.

The overwhelming consensus around here was that the Blues would need Binner/Hofer to provide the Blues with elite-or-near elite goaltending for this team to match/exceed last year. They haven't.

 

[Brian39]

I don't believe that. Our cup team did not have an abundance of high end talent, just players willing to work and grind hard in the O-zone. That's what we're lacking but you are right, we don't have enough high end talent to play the way they are trying to play. We need to get into the O-zone and grind but we're not doing that.

ROR won the Selke the year we won the Cup. He received votes for the award in each of the preceding seasons.

Petro had received Norris votes in 6 of the 8 years leading up to our Cup win, finishing top 10 3 times.

Tarasenko had received Hart votes three times in his career before the Cup win and in the 5 seasons leading up to (and including) the Cup season he scored the 3rd most goals in the league.

Thomas has 1 season receiving Selke votes and Parayko finished 8th in Calder voting his rookie year. I don't believe any other skater on our roster has ever received a vote for a major award.

The Cup team absolutely had an abundance of high end talent compared to the current roster.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

And you are consistently ignoring that the goaltending was dramatically better last year.

Last year the goalies stopped 27 goals above expected according to Moneypuck. They are -5 so far this season. That's a massive difference. The raw SV% has dropped from .913 to .900. Any way you slice it, the goalies' play this year is directly responsible for about 20 extra goals against so far vs their play last year. That doesn't mean that the goalies suck this year or are tanking the season. But they are objectively playing much worse than last year when they were a clear top 5 tandem in the league.

That unambiguously impacts the year-to-year record and I very much don't see anything suggesting that their play is tied to the head coach.

The overwhelming consensus around here was that the Blues would need Binner/Hofer to provide the Blues with elite-or-near elite goaltending for this team to match/exceed last year. They haven't.

Goaltending being worse is also perplexing as it seemed our defense was better this year. Last year it seemed like odd man after odd man break, defensive zone breakdowns after breakdown, and only our goalies standing on their head kept us in the game. Under both Monty and Bannister it seemed better this year.

Can anyone provide stats (advanced or not) that corroborate the defense has gotten better? Are we giving up less odd-man and breakaways chances? Less high danger chances? Would look myself but traveling and mobile phones aren’t conductive to research. I know I have seen people saying our 5vs5 XGF has been better so maybe that indicates it.

 

[Brian39]

Goaltending being worse is also perplexing as it seemed our defense was better this year. Last year it seemed like odd man after odd man break, defensive zone breakdowns after breakdown, and only our goalies standing on their head kept us in the game. Under both Monty and Bannister it seemed better this year.

Can anyone provide stats (advanced or not) that corroborate the defense has gotten better? Are we giving up less odd-man and breakaways chances? Less high danger chances? Would look myself but traveling and mobile phones aren’t conductive to research. I know I have seen people saying our 5vs5 XGF has been better so maybe that indicates it.

All numbers per Natural Stat Trick:

Expected goals against per 60: 10th at 5 on 5, 8th in all situations.

High danger chances against per 60: 5th at 5 on 5 and 3rd in all situations.

Scoring chances against per 60: 14th at both 5 on 5 and all situation.

We were 24th to 28th in every one of these stats last year.

The team is playing significantly better defensively in front of the goalies this year.

 

[Majorityof1]

And you are consistently ignoring that the goaltending was dramatically better last year.

Last year the goalies stopped 27 goals above expected according to Moneypuck. They are -5 so far this season. That's a massive difference. The raw SV% has dropped from .913 to .900. Any way you slice it, the goalies' play this year is directly responsible for about 20 extra goals against so far vs their play last year. That doesn't mean that the goalies suck this year or are tanking the season. But they are objectively playing much worse than last year when they were a clear top 5 tandem in the league.

That unambiguously impacts the year-to-year record and I very much don't see anything suggesting that their play is tied to the head coach.

The overwhelming consensus around here was that the Blues would need Binner/Hofer to provide the Blues with elite-or-near elite goaltending for this team to match/exceed last year. They haven't.

How am I ignoring it? Cause I didn't respond to your snarky comment about it?

Bannister was smart and told the goalies to play at the top of their games every night. Monty is apparently too stupid to do that. Troubling.

That was me ignoring that attempt at insulting my viewpoint. Had you initially approached it as a discussion, I would gave discussed it.

I expect better from you. You are my favorite poster on the site, hands down. I'm constantly shocked by how reasonable you are in your discourse with outlandish views. If that response from you shows what you think of my posts, I'm not going to engage with you. That doesn't change my view of you as an excellent poster but why try to have a discussion on the topic when I clearly antagonize you so.

 

[Brian39]

How am I ignoring it? Cause I didn't respond to your snarky comment about it?

By making a dozen or so posts in the last couple weeks that evaluate the coaches based on record alone. Your entire argument on the topic has been that the record isn't better. And that's it. Despite plenty of posts (starting well before yesterday) about Binner/Hofer not playing as well this year, underlying metrics, and people discussing eye test you routinely offer nothing on the subject beyond 'the record isn't any better.'

You have made a number of posts talking about all the 'advantages' Monty has had compared to Bannister with absolutely zero consideration of the quality of play in net the two have had. That is ignoring the quality of play in net and how that impacts the team record.

 

[Majorityof1]

By making a dozen or so posts in the last couple weeks that evaluate the coaches based on record alone. Your entire argument on the topic has been that the record isn't better. And that's it. Despite plenty of posts (starting well before yesterday) about Binner/Hofer not playing as well this year, underlying metrics, and people discussing eye test you routinely offer nothing on the subject beyond 'the record isn't any better.'

You have made a number of posts talking about all the 'advantages' Monty has had compared to Bannister with absolutely zero consideration of the quality of play in net the two have had. That is ignoring the quality of play in net and how that impacts the team record.

And had you said, "what about the change in goalie performance?", I would have explained my logic behind ignoring it. And you would have eloquently and with copious stats showed me why I was wrong

But you went another direction and I chose not to engage with you on it.

 

[Brian39]

And had you said, "what about the change in goalie performance?", I would have explained my logic behind ignoring it. And you would gave eloquently and with copious stats showed me why I was wrong

But you went another direction and I chose not to engage with you on it.

The goaltending performance was specifically brought up by @BadgersandBlues in the post you were responding to. He made a well thought out post outlining how the PK and goaltending are the two biggest factors in our struggles under Monty. It included a full paragraph with stats about the massive difference in the goalie play from last year to this year. You ignored the goaltending (and special teams) completely, chalked up the massive improvement to the underlying metrics to roster changes, and then sarcastically brought everything back to the record.

After my snarky comment, @Stupendous Yappi also brought up the mediocre goaltending as the issue. You again ignored the difference in year-to-year goaltending while focusing on roster changes and said that people were being disingenuous by ignoring roster changes.

Then @Bye Bye Blueston also brought up the difference in goaltending, which you again ignored in your response to him.

After all that, I phrased my post as you consistently ignoring the difference in goaltending. Because by that point, you had declined to engage in the goaltending discussion with 4 posters who had all brought it up (including my post which I admit was absolutely snarky). You were absolutely ignoring it completely and it wasn't just my shitty comment that you ignored.

All that said, sorry for being a sarcastic ass. That comment was an unnecessary drive-by that definitely read as way more dismissive than I intended.