2024-2025 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread.

[A Real Barn Burner]

Agreed, but that's because his choices were to cancel the contract or ride the bus in Springdale and still be away from his family for the rest of this year and likely next. Saad didn't go to management and say, "Hey, can you waive me and then cancel my contract, I really want to play in Vegas for 33% as much money," I'm just saying, let's not act like he didn't lose anything. He was asked to pick the lesser of two negative outcomes because the Blues wanted someone to make an example out of. He was not the most deserving of being waived, he just made the money and was a big message.

He could have chose to pull his head of his….before that was necessary. They might be making an example of him but it’s not like it wasn’t deserved. If he continues to not produce in Vegas then next year’s contract will be smaller or harder to come by altogether. Vegas made a smart gamble got a very motivated player for cheap. Management should be commended for taking action sends a message to guys on the team to either play to your contract or we will see you out the door. I don’t think this message was meant to be sent to just our young or upcoming players either imho.

 

[Majorityof1]

He could have chose to pull his head of his….before that was necessary. They might be making an example of him but it’s not like it wasn’t deserved. If he continues to not produce in Vegas then next year’s contract will be smaller or harder to come by altogether. Vegas made a smart gamble got very motivated player for cheap. Management should be commended for taking action sends a message to guys on the team to either play to your contract or we will see you out the door. I don’t think this message was meant to be sent to just our young or upcoming players either imho.

I don't disagree that he was bad this year. Again, I am not defending him. I am just looking at how this is perceived in the room, and beyond the room. It definitely wasn't just aimed at the kids. But how will the message land? When management is not giving you the tools to do your job, then punishing employees for not meeting quotas, that never leads to increased production. Maybe it works in hockey. We will see.

Beyond the room, do you want to join a team that does not give a NMC and will waive a perennial 20-20 guy for struggling half a season? Did we land on a few more modified NTCs? Again, I do not know. I am legitimately asking the question.

 

[Xerloris]

Where did anyone say he didn't lose anything, obviously he lost money, and obviously the money wasn't that important to him, mainly because of his career earnings. I think we are splitting hairs on who was the most deserving of being waived. In his 43 games, he only scored goals in 3 of them. He's no longer someone that can be relied on in a shutdown role. And assuming Army knew a contract termination was likely or a possibility, his higher cap compared to guys like Joseph or Texier made him a more attractive option to cut bait from. Seems like we are forgetting that Saad was also healthy scratched at points and had games with reduced minutes.

Is Saad currently better than Texier, sure, but we are at the point where we know we want to dump Saad, and we at least want to find out if we should dump Texier or not. Most likely, we'll still want to dump Texier, but might as well find out.

At the end of the day, a good portion of the bottom 6 could be waived for all I care, few of them have been good enough.

I don't think it had anything to do with him deserving to be waived, IMO I think he asked for a trade and no one wanted to pay so we hoped someone would take him for free and when that failed to he was wiling to terminate his contract.

 

[stl76]

Where is the upside that you're seeing? I'm watching most games, but I'd like to see actual highlights of his potential. Bolduc has played 65+ games in the NHL so far, and we aren't even seeing flashes of high-end skill. I understand that he doesn't have the best linemates, but he has only scored in 4 different games out of 42 this season. When Schwartz and Tarasenko entered the league, they had moments of brilliance almost instantly. They could generate high-danger chances on their own but struggled with consistency their first couple of years. I'm not counting Bolduc out yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded next year.

I believe in Bolduc's IQ and internal drive. He's a damn smart player and I think that his natural goal scoring ability will translate once he becomes more comfortable/confident. He needs to learn to manage the puck better at times, but his defensive game is advanced for his age. It may take him longer than Schwartz or Tarasenko to figure things out at the NHL level, but his development so far is in line with plenty of other good NHL players.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

I don't disagree that he was bad this year. Again, I am not defending him. I am just looking at how this is perceived in the room, and beyond the room. It definitely wasn't just aimed at the kids. But how will the message land? When management is not giving you the tools to do your job, then punishing employees for not meeting quotas, that never leads to increased production. Maybe it works in hockey. We will see.

Beyond the room, do you want to join a team that does not give a NMC and will waive a perennial 20-20 guy for struggling half a season? Did we land on a few more modified NTCs? Again, I do not know. I am legitimately asking the question.

I can see your point. I think those are question worth asking. There are things management can control like how they treat players, and what contracts they give out. There are also things they can not like climate, and state taxes. As the saying goes reputation is everything.

Overall, I think Armstrong and the Blues are well respected and have a history of treating players well. Fabri, Cole, Walman, and Edmundson are some example where we moved the player in a respected way that allowed them to find a better fit. Stewart, Lethra, Hayes, and Saad are examples where it didn’t work out. Also, Berglund happened as an outlier and that didn’t seem to negatively affect our reputation. I don’t think Saad’s treatment will cost us UFA options in the future but that’s just my opinion and I can see your argument in that regard.

How do you balance how much time we give a player to bounce back and how much you allow disengagement like that to set a tone of mediocrity in the dressing room? Although I would beg to differ that Saad did have ample tools to meet 20 and 20. He has done more with worse line mates and didn’t produce on either Thomas or Schenn wing at the beginning of the season. Benching him didn’t wake him up. But as you say you’re not defending Saad so perhaps that is moot. I will say this the Blues had every reason to want for Saad to turn himself around and prove he was worth his contract. It would have meant he would be worth dealing at this or the next deadline. The fact that his play and attitude warranted a contract termination says something.

We will have to see how the message lands. Hopefully this bunch isn’t so disengaged and they respond to the stimulus.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Kessel sent back to Springfield, which makes sense since he struggled. But gotta wonder because Tucker left injured last night..

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Kessel sent back to Springfield, which makes sense since he struggled. But gotta wonder because Tucker left injured last night..

Not surprised. I think he was only called up because Parayko had the Plague

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Not surprised. I think he was only called up because Parayko had the Plague

Yes, but if Tucker is out we still need someone else up.

 

[MissouriMook]

Yes, but if Tucker is out we still need someone else up.

Unless Leddy is finally back, in which case those two just swap spots.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Unless Leddy is finally back, in which case those two just swap spots.

You really think Sisyphus is ready to play?

 

[Brian39]

I'm not complaining. I don't weep when Millionaires who still make millions make less millions. I am just saying that people in the room could very easily be pissed about the team putting their friend in a bad situation just to make a point, when the reason we suck is because the one doing the waiving built a shitty team and entered the season without a single middle 6 C.

"Making a point" was absolutely not the only reason we waived Saad. We'd been trying to move him for months and he was massively overpaid compared to what he contributed on the ice this year. I think that 'making a point' was definitely part of the equation, but 'getting out of that contract' was also a large part of the equation.

+/- is far from a great stat, but it is useful in some situations and Saad has the worst +/- on the team at -14. The 2nd worst forward is -7. Unlike past seasons, we weren't using him in a primarily defensive role. His O zone starts were about 53% compared to 45% (or lower) in the last few years, so his +/- can't be blamed solely on role.

We can debate which of the healthy scratches have been the 'worst' overall players for the Blues and I agree that Saad's play wouldn't have made him the answer to that question. But his contract was also a noticeably bigger cap/cash commitment than those players and that is a factor when you're deciding what to do with someone. Saad was closer to 'worst forward on the team' than he was to a $4.5M player this year. While waking up the locker room may have been a big part of the decision, it definitely wasn't the only part of the decision.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I can see your point. I think those are question worth asking. There are things management can control like how they treat players, and what contracts they give out. There are also things they can not like climate, and state taxes. As the saying goes reputation is everything.

Overall, I think Armstrong and the Blues are well respected and have a history of treating players well. Fabri, Cole, Walman, and Edmundson are some example where we moved the player in a respected way that allowed them to find a better fit. Stewart, Lethra, Hayes, and Saad are examples where it didn’t work out. Also, Berglund happened as an outlier and that didn’t seem to negatively affect our reputation. I don’t think Saad’s treatment will cost us UFA options in the future but that’s just my opinion and I can see your argument in that regard.

How do you balance how much time we give a player to bounce back and how much you allow disengagement like that to set a tone of mediocrity in the dressing room? Although I would beg to differ that Saad did have ample tools to meet 20 and 20. He has done more with worse line mates and didn’t produce on either Thomas or Schenn wing at the beginning of the season. Benching him didn’t wake him up. But as you say you’re not defending Saad so perhaps that is moot. I will say this the Blues had every reason to want for Saad to turn himself around and prove he was worth his contract. It would have meant he would be worth dealing at this or the next deadline. The fact that his play and attitude warranted a contract termination says something.

We will have to see how the message lands. Hopefully this bunch isn’t so disengaged and they respond to the stimulus.

Agree. The Saad transaction is nothing burger. Everyone is happy, except maybe the NHLPA. They'll figure out some way to be upset.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Leddy to return from injury after missing 49 games | St. Louis Blues

The St. Louis Blues will get a boost on the blueline on Tuesday as Nick Leddy is ready to return to the lineup. Leddy has played just four games during the 2024-25 season, last appearing on Oct. 15 against the Minnesota Wild. He has missed 49 games due to injury

www.nhl.com

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Tucker Day to Day, Joseph has the Plague

 

[Majorityof1]

Leddy to return from injury after missing 49 games | St. Louis Blues

The St. Louis Blues will get a boost on the blueline on Tuesday as Nick Leddy is ready to return to the lineup. Leddy has played just four games during the 2024-25 season, last appearing on Oct. 15 against the Minnesota Wild. He has missed 49 games due to injury

www.nhl.com

Missed 49 games and we still don't know what was wrong. Not even the usual lower-body, upper-body. I'd assume lower as he looked slower while trying to play at the start of the season.

Of course, that is in no way meant to imply he is not a person going through something that could potentially happen to a person. Just saying the complete lack of info we were given based on the length of the injury was uncommon based on my recollection of past injuries in the NHL Again, Leddy is a human being, not a turnip or goldfish or anything not a person...it was just a weird lack of info...but fully on board that he's a person.

 

[Brian39]

Missed 49 games and we still don't know what was wrong. Not even the usual lower-body, upper-body. I'd assume lower as he looked slower while trying to play at the start of the season.

Of course, that is in no way meant to imply he is not a person going through something that could potentially happen to a person. Just saying the complete lack of info we were given based on the length of the injury was uncommon based on my recollection of past injuries in the NHL Again, Leddy is a human being, not a turnip or goldfish or anything not a person...it was just a weird lack of info...but fully on board that he's a person.

It was reported as a lower body injury in October and a bunch of the reports through the process (and with the recent activation from IR) have used the lower-body description. We don't know details beyond that, but they have been pretty candid about it being lower body.

 

[Majorityof1]

It was reported as a lower body injury in October and a bunch of the reports through the process (and with the recent activation from IR) have used the lower-body description. We don't know details beyond that, but they have been pretty candid about it being lower body.

My bad. I must have completely spaced on those mentions Still stand by the other lack of specifics being a bit unusual but at least they did say lower body.

I don't see a mention of lowerbody in the linked article about his activation or in the Blues tweet about it.

 

[PocketNines]

yeah must have

 

[Beauterham]

Leddy to return from injury after missing 49 games | St. Louis Blues

The St. Louis Blues will get a boost on the blueline on Tuesday as Nick Leddy is ready to return to the lineup. Leddy has played just four games during the 2024-25 season, last appearing on Oct. 15 against the Minnesota Wild. He has missed 49 games due to injury

www.nhl.com

Just in time to show teams he's healthy before the trade deadline.

 

[Reality Czech]

It was reported as a lower body injury in October and a bunch of the reports through the process (and with the recent activation from IR) have used the lower-body description. We don't know details beyond that, but they have been pretty candid about it being lower body.

So not only was he a bad coach but also a bad evaluator of injuries?

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Wrong thread

 

[bleedblue1223]

So, there was this nugget in JR's lastest piece. Um, what?

And don’t forget about Torey Krug, who has resumed skating after his potentially career-threatening ankle surgery and might try to return in 2025-26. He’ll turn 34 on April 12 and, like Faulk, has two seasons left on his contract with a $6.5 million cap hit.

 

[LGB]

So, there was this nugget in JR's lastest piece. Um, what?

Doesn’t surprise me at all. We’ll see how it plays out.

 

[Brian39]

So, there was this nugget in JR's lastest piece. Um, what?

I genuinely can't tell whether that is informed speculation that Krug wants to try to return or just an acknowledgment that he could potentially try to return. Regardless, the confirmation of the cap going to $95.5M next season means that we will have space to do pretty much whatever we want. The inability to LTIR Krug is less of an issue than simply having all of Broberg, Fowler, Leddy, and Krug on the roster.

All in all, I'm much less concerned about the potential of having a healthy (but diminished) Krug next year than I would have been a few months ago. We'll see what Leddy looks like down the stretch. We'll see how Krug looks if he tries to come back. But ultimately I feel fairly comfortable that we can maneuver around contract issues with either/both.

My gut tells me that Krug will try to come back, but won't look like an NHL player when he does. If he looks like an NHL player then I think we will get out of Leddy's deal and run Krug as a 3rd pair, PP guy. But if he doesn't look like an NHL player, then I think we'll have a long talk with him about remaining on LTIR due to the injury preventing him from playing at an NHL level. There is some precedent for that. Ben Bishop was physically able to get back on the ice and play the position of goaltender, but his quality of the play was sufficiently limited by the injury that he gave up the comeback attempt and remained on LTIR after a disastrous conditioning game in the AHL. We just showed the room that we'd pay a vet real money to play in the AHL. Push comes to shove, I bet Krug would prefer to give up an attempt to come back over toiling in the AHL if it turns out that he isn't good enough to play in the NHL.

Either way, I'm content taking a 'wait and see' approach instead of desperately scrambling to form contingency plans about next year's camp. Let's see how Leddy looks over the next 25 games and go from there.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I genuinely can't tell whether that is informed speculation that Krug wants to try to return or just an acknowledgment that he could potentially try to return. Regardless, the confirmation of the cap going to $95.5M next season means that we will have space to do pretty much whatever we want. The inability to LTIR Krug is less of an issue than simply having all of Broberg, Fowler, Leddy, and Krug on the roster.

All in all, I'm much less concerned about the potential of having a healthy (but diminished) Krug next year than I would have been a few months ago. We'll see what Leddy looks like down the stretch. We'll see how Krug looks if he tries to come back. But ultimately I feel fairly comfortable that we can maneuver around contract issues with either/both.

My gut tells me that Krug will try to come back, but won't look like an NHL player when he does. If he looks like an NHL player then I think we will get out of Leddy's deal and run Krug as a 3rd pair, PP guy. But if he doesn't look like an NHL player, then I think we'll have a long talk with him about remaining on LTIR due to the injury preventing him from playing at an NHL level. There is some precedent for that. Ben Bishop was physically able to get back on the ice and play the position of goaltender, but his quality of the play was sufficiently limited by the injury that he gave up the comeback attempt and remained on LTIR after a disastrous conditioning game in the AHL. We just showed the room that we'd pay a vet real money to play in the AHL. Push comes to shove, I bet Krug would prefer to give up an attempt to come back over toiling in the AHL if it turns out that he isn't good enough to play in the NHL.

Either way, I'm content taking a 'wait and see' approach instead of desperately scrambling to form contingency plans about next year's camp. Let's see how Leddy looks over the next 25 games and go from there.

I agree, between the cap increasing significantly and Saad terminating his contract, we have plenty of cap flexibility to handle a Krug return. And if Krug does return, I think you are also right, we'll move Leddy, I think it's plausible we even move Leddy at this trade deadline.

My surprise when I saw that is kind of similar to Leddy's injury and return. It's a combo of NHL doesn't really compel teams to divulge much on injuries like say the NFL, and then our media doesn't really push as hard as some other markets might.