2024-2025 Blues Trade Proposals Thread.

[Mike Liut]

I hope Leddy plays great so we can trade his ass

 

[StlBigFly]

Just irritates me kinda

The postgame last night

And the coach interview

Are all like

“Well, the blues hung in there but then McDavid did McDavid things and there’s nothing that can really be done about it”.

Yes there is something that can be done about it. We could, instead of filling the team 2/3 of the way so it’s sort of competitive.

We could draft a talent in the top 5 - just like the LA Kings did during their brief rebuild.

Sure would be nice, since a lot of hockey is decided by the 5 best versus the 5 best, for us to maybe actually get somebody who is competitive in that environment versus just getting caved in. As it turns out, they literally all come from the exact same place: the draft: they aren’t traded and they aren’t free agents. They’re prospects then franchise players.

Through expansion and the pandemic, the talent pool is dry - this makes the pinnacle talent appear even better than they are through dilution. The league is no longer a place you can just mid your way to victory. The top end is able to have an extremely outsized impact on results.

Doug and the blues owners are making a Very expensive mistake right now pushing this team away from pinnacle talent. It’s going to make the next 10 years miserable - constantly caved in whenever elite talent decides that’s what they want to do. Constantly forced to put dudes over the boards in critical scenarios when they don’t have the talent level of their opposition.

Trade Kyrou or Thomas or Parayko and rebuild in a manner that gives us a chance. OR trade for a winger/2C and actually field a full team. Stop doing neither. Stop putting playoff expectations, win streak expectations, on a team that you didn’t fully build. You’re missing a top 6 skater.

Get us draft selections that define generations. Stop being so mid, gaslighting that there’s nothing that can be done about things like McDavid. Imma be legit questioning my ability to stick with this team if they draft 15th or 16th again. It’s too much failed management. Team struggling to sell tickets due to persistent losses at home including weekend shutouts but at the same time make sure we’re competitive enough that we don’t get the actual fix for the situation, but of course not competitive enough that we have a full depth chart. All the pain of a rebuild without any of the reward.

I don’t want to watch 10 years of mid hockey.

 

[ds774622]

Get us draft selections that define generations. Stop being so mid, gaslighting that there’s nothing that can be done about things like McDavid. Imma be legit questioning my ability to stick with this team if they draft 15th or 16th again. It’s too much failed management. Team struggling to sell tickets due to persistent losses at home including weekend shutouts but at the same time make sure we’re competitive enough that we don’t get the actual fix for the situation, but of course not competitive enough that we have a full depth chart. All the pain of a rebuild without any of the reward.

I'm sure our ownership group would be thrilled to bottom out and lose tens of millions of dollars by being a bottom feeder during a rebuild. We're not Chicago, we're not the Rangers who lucked into two top picks, our (their) pockets aren't deep; this is the reality of a team valued 23rd on the most recent rankings. Yes I'd love a top 5 pick but I don't think it's that cut and dry from a financial perspective.

 

[Brian39]

Just irritates me kinda

The postgame last night

And the coach interview

Are all like

“Well, the blues hung in there but then McDavid did McDavid things and there’s nothing that can really be done about it”.

...

Get us draft selections that define generations. Stop being so mid, gaslighting that there’s nothing that can be done about things like McDavid. Imma be legit questioning my ability to stick with this team if they draft 15th or 16th again. It’s too much failed management. Team struggling to sell tickets due to persistent losses at home including weekend shutouts but at the same time make sure we’re competitive enough that we don’t get the actual fix for the situation. All the pain of a rebuild without any of the reward.

McDavid had two 4 point efforts in the Final against Florida (plus another 2 point night). Florida beat Edmonton in 7.

He had a 3 point effort against Vegas in 2023 along with three other 2 point nights. Vegas beat Edmonton in 6.

He had two 3 point efforts against Colorado in 2022. Colorado won in 4.

McDavid is going to have games/moments where he is just unstoppable. That is just the reality of playing against the best player in the world (who is already nearing the conversation as a top 5 player of all time). There is no gaslighting going on by acknowledging it. I don't think anyone in the Blues organization believes that we are a contender right now and no one in the organization has tried to sell the fanbase on that notion. But it isn't gaslighting to acknowledge that guys like McDavid are going to take over games sometimes. And I especially don't expect a coach to wax poetic about a long-term organizational philosophy when discussing how a mid-to-bottom of the pack team lost to a top 5 team with a megastar.

 

[StlBigFly]

I'm sure our ownership group would be thrilled to bottom out and lose tens of millions of dollars by being a bottom feeder during a rebuild. We're not Chicago, we're not the Rangers who lucked into two top picks, our (their) pockets aren't deep; this is the reality of a team valued 23rd on the most recent rankings. Yes I'd love a top 5 pick but I don't think it's that cut and dry from a financial perspective.

I’m guessing the mandate was rebuild while maintaining as competitive a posture as possible? That seems like a safe guess at the basic initial strategy.

I’m okay with that.

But right now the results are crushing.

It’s low scoring, low shot, constantly outmatched in some manner. Too many games are over by the 10 minute mark of the 1st period. Too many times the opposition does exactly what we think they’re going to do because we’re so outmatched. And yet we will draft and spend like a playoff team. For what? It has to be really hard to sell this brand of hockey. I chat with my pops once a week and he always has some blues commentary. I cannot tell you how many times this season he’s said -“I turned it off after the (insert early goal).” Obviously small sample size here but I’d imagine there’s quite a bit of casual fans acting like this.

It sucks that the results aren’t good. We all wanted great results. It seems like a smart and viable way to go about things. But then there are results. Doing nothing about it is wild to me. We’re going to be good enough to draft like A playoff team while experiencing the season of a bottom feeder. Accepting the obvious pending outcome is absolutely wild to me. If you’re going to take all the pain for the being bad part for fs sake get the reward because the reward is the medicine for the problem.

But you’re probably right. I’m spending money that isn’t mine in my rant. I just needed to rant my bad. I’ll stop. Just frustrating.

 

[PocketNines]

I remember when Armstrong tried to sell us that we intended to have a rebuild "like the Kings" in the same breath as explaining why we wouldn't be getting a great draft pick because of our Kings-like rebuild like when the Kings had literally just picked 5, 2, then 8 three years in a row 2019-2021.

How is a guy like JR going to call him on something like that? JR doesn't have it in him

 

[Brian39]

But right now the results are crushing.

It’s low scoring, low shot, constantly outmatched in some manner. It has to be really hard to sell this brand of hockey.

It sucks that the results aren’t good. We all wanted great results. Doing nothing about it is wild to me.

I don't understand what results you want. You say that you want the team to suck and tank for a high draft pick, but at the same time you are one of the loudest voices complaining about how the team is playing through this stretch where...they suck and are plummeting down the standings. The last 2 and a half weeks where they have gone 2-5-1 while scoring 2 or fewer goals 7 times is exactly in line with being bad to obtain high end draft capital. Isn't this what you want?

 

[AyeBah]

I'm sure our ownership group would be thrilled to bottom out and lose tens of millions of dollars by being a bottom feeder during a rebuild. We're not Chicago, we're not the Rangers who lucked into two top picks, our (their) pockets aren't deep; this is the reality of a team valued 23rd on the most recent rankings. Yes I'd love a top 5 pick but I don't think it's that cut and dry from a financial perspective.

The thing is we're like 5 points out from a top 5 pick. We probably would have leonard two years ago if we didn't pointlessly add Vrana and Krapanen who went off and won us a few games. Just selling off a few pieces should get us into the top 5, we are a lot closer than it feels like to that pick range. No need to strip it down and sell 25, 55, and 18

 

[Mike Liut]

We have a lot of good young pieces in place and lots of cap room coming up too. If we hit on a few of our prospects, we could be a legit contender in 3 years. I’m very optimistic long term. We need to hit on this upcoming top 8 pick too.

 

[Brian39]

The thing is we're like 5 points out from a top 5 pick. We probably would have leonard two years ago if we didn't pointlessly add Vrana and Krapanen who went off and won us a few games. Just selling off a few pieces should get us into the top 5, we are a lot closer than it feels like to that pick range. No need to strip it down and sell 25, 55, and 18

I'm not sold that our organization is in better shape if you swap Dvorsky for Leonard. That is not remotely a knock on Leonard because I really, really, really like him as a player. But while his overall game looks more NHL-ready than Dvorsky's, he's half a year older than Dvorsky and I'm not 100% sold that he will be a more impactful NHL player over the duration of his career. But even if we agree that he will for sure be a more impactful player, our prospect pool had (and the NHL roster still has) a much bigger need for a top 6 center than a top 6 RW.

I think you take the best available player regardless of position when you're talking about a top 10 pick. I'm not saying that the Blues would (or should) have picked Dvorsky over Leonard if they had their choice. But in a scenario where we had taken Leonard, where does that leave our organization? Do we pick a more surefire center instead of Stenberg? Do we try to snag Stenberg and a center instead of Stenberg and Lindstein? Do we draft a center in 2024 instead of Jiricek? Or do we still draft our guys and then spend the next year trying to flip assets in order to fill the still gaping hole at center?

Obviously we can't confidently answer those 'what if' questions, but I see a lot of paths there that lead to us being in a worse spot than we are with Dvorsky in the organization. Heading into that 2023 draft, our wing pipeline was the strongest thing in our organization. We had used 3 straight 1st round picks to draft Neighbours, Bolduc, and Snuggy. Kyrou had emerged as a 75 point RW.

I'm not sold that we would be any better off today had we drafted a couple spots higher to draft Leonard. I'm very much a bigger fan of Dvorsky than Danielson. And I feel pretty confident that Michkov's camp would have turned our organization off drafting him so he could still land in Philly if we drafted ahead of them. We went 11-10-2 in the 23 games with Kap on the roster and we finished 11 points ahead of Arizona. We also had clear control of the tiebreak over them, so we'd have need to earn 12 fewer points to draft ahead of them. I very much doubt that we'd have gone 6-17-0 (or 5-15-2) if not for adding those two guys.

I have zero heartburn about 2022/23. I think there is a real chance we'd have drafted Dvorsky at 7th overall and even if we wouldn't have, I think there is a real chance that the organization is better off with Dvorsky than where we'd be had we selected one of the 3 guys who went before him.

 

[StlBigFly]

I don't understand what results you want. You say that you want the team to suck and tank for a high draft pick, but at the same time you are one of the loudest voices complaining about how the team is playing through this stretch where...they suck and are plummeting down the standings. The last 2 and a half weeks where they have gone 2-5-1 while scoring 2 or fewer goals 7 times is exactly in line with being bad to obtain high end draft capital. Isn't this what you want?

Here are 2 things I would prefer we do instead of what we are doing:

1. If we’re going to embrace the brand of hockey where the opponent outshoots us 15-3 halfway through the first period, but at the same time you’re going to have the broadcast discuss playoff points and the teams in the wildcard race, advertise playoff stretch run ticket packages, then I’d suggest they should fill the depth chart. There’s a big hole that tarasenko used to fill that is currently sitting in non-nhl leagues. Don’t set the expectations of competition when there isn’t any. But since you’ve set the expectation of competitive hockey:

Go to the market and get a rental right now and play with a competitive group, even if it costs a little of the future. If you’re going to say it’s a competitive environment then field a full team. Not “we waived a guy so I could force a coach to put a guy who couldn’t crack the lineup into the lineup”. That’s developmental hockey.

2. If you’re doing developmental hockey then trade a piece that is contributing at a high level to a contender so we can reduce our win expectation a bit, increasing our chance at talent lottery odds. I don’t think number 1 is an option. That needed to happen months ago.

I’m not mad or sad or frustrated at a single game’s results.

I’m frustrated that the course it appears we are on seems to be the worst possible one, one where we get most of the bad, little of the good, and it impacts us for the next 10 years.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

The thing about the Kings is they haven’t ever really been sellers in the pure sense. They’ve acquired and sent out 1st round picks (Muzzin and Gavrikov, respectively, as examples) during their retool. Players have walked, and they’ve paid assets to get rid of others. But really, their lineup has stayed largely intact. Kopitar and Doughty are still there. They’ve just been patient while the young guys come along. High picks like Turcotte and Clarke haven’t really worked out as planned, but then a guy like Alex Laferriere breaks out and has helped backfill the roster. It all just takes time, and the path is rarely linear.

I feel like we’ve been mostly doing the right things. We tried to be competitive this year, but our acquisitions were age-appropriate for the long-haul. It didn’t work out, and that’s fine, because it’s still very early in the process. The guys we’ve got coming along still need a few years to mature. If we pick high again this year, all the better, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that the plan is backfiring. Again, the process is rarely linear. But I think there’s a lot of reasons to be optimistic, and tearing it all down to the studs isn’t something I think anyone would actually be happier about in 2-3 years.

 

[SirPaste]

Here are 2 things I would prefer we do instead of what we are doing:

1. If we’re going to embrace the brand of hockey where the opponent outshoots us 15-3 halfway through the first period, but at the same time you’re going to have the broadcast discuss playoff points and the teams in the wildcard race, then I’d suggest they should fill the depth chart.

Go to the market and get a rental right now and play with a competitive group, even if it costs a little of the future. If you’re going to say it’s a competitive environment then field a full team. Not “we waived a guy so I could force a coach to put a guy who couldn’t crack the lineup into the lineup”. That’s developmental hockey.

2. If you’re doing developmental hockey then trade a piece that is contributing at a high level to a contender so we can reduce our win expectation a bit, increasing our chance at talent lottery odds.

I’m not mad or sad or frustrated at a single game’s results.

I’m frustrated that the course it appears we are on seems to be the worst possible one, one where we get most of the bad, little of the good, and it impacts us for the next 10 years.

I disagree with the idea that we are on the worst possible course. We were always going to have a few rough years while we wait for the youngsters to arrive and for the bloated unmoveable contracts to expire, but we are nearing the end of that small window. The cap is going up, these bad contracts are coming off the books soon or down to a point where moving one if needed is a realistic option, not that I am sure it is needed anymore with Saad gone and Krug likely LTIRetired. We are likely looking at a top 10 pick this year and that will add to our solid prospect group who should start being integrated into the lineup in the near future, we are approaching the next phase of the retool where we identify what we have with our prospect group and then go out and acquire what we still need with the extra cap space we will soon have and prospects that we don't feel like we need going forward.

Basically what I am trying to say is that it's too late in the process for a tear it down rebuild and we just need to continue forward with the plan, not deviate with your two options pointed out. It is a super frustrating process as a fan because we have to sit through the mediocre years but that should be coming to an end soon, at the very least we will have some exciting young players to watch grow. It is all part of the retooling process, which like or not, is the plan that was set in motion, we need to see it through not make any rash decisions based on a 10-15 game sample size.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

Here are 2 things I would prefer we do instead of what we are doing:

1. If we’re going to embrace the brand of hockey where the opponent outshoots us 15-3 halfway through the first period, but at the same time you’re going to have the broadcast discuss playoff points and the teams in the wildcard race, then I’d suggest they should fill the depth chart. There’s a big hole that tarasenko used to fill that is currently sitting in non-nhl leagues. Don’t set the expectations of competition when there isn’t any. But since you’ve set the expectation of competitive hockey:

Go to the market and get a rental right now and play with a competitive group, even if it costs a little of the future. If you’re going to say it’s a competitive environment then field a full team. Not “we waived a guy so I could force a coach to put a guy who couldn’t crack the lineup into the lineup”. That’s developmental hockey.

2. If you’re doing developmental hockey then trade a piece that is contributing at a high level to a contender so we can reduce our win expectation a bit, increasing our chance at talent lottery odds. I don’t think number 1 is an option. That needed to happen months ago.

I’m not mad or sad or frustrated at a single game’s results.

I’m frustrated that the course it appears we are on seems to be the worst possible one, one where we get most of the bad, little of the good, and it impacts us for the next 10 years.

I believe we're transitioning into the 'developmental hockey' portion of the season but from a business perspective, I believe Armstrong thinks it's best for the team financially if they make it appear as if we're trying to contend. Honestly, that's been my viewpoint since training camp started and I don't feel like much has changed in that regard.

I believe ownership wants to maintain enough interest to keep fans coming through the gates for as long as possible and I don't see a big piece dealt, nor a rental acquired until close to the trade deadline, if at all. Unfortunately from a long-term perspective, that's that middle path that probably hurts the team in the long run. Re-signing Buchnevich is a move that I believe falls under that category. I also don't see another situation where we are holding a valuable piece that will demand a return that's going to significantly change the trajectory of the team either for the better, by trading them, or for the worse, by keeping them and getting a lower draft slot.

This team is playing poorly enough to get a pick in the 8-12 range which is pretty much exactly where I see them playing. The teams in the basement aren't likely to give us an opportunity to climb much higher than that no matter what this team does and once other teams below the Blues start selling off, I think there's too much talent there that we want to keep over the next few seasons to slide that far.

 

[StlBigFly]

I disagree with the idea that we are on the worst possible course. We were always going to have a few rough years while we wait for the youngsters to arrive and for the bloated unmoveable contracts to expire, but we are nearing the end of that small window. The cap is going up, these bad contracts are coming off the books soon or down to a point where moving one if needed is a realistic option, not that I am sure it is needed anymore with Saad gone and Krug likely LTIRetired. We are likely looking at a top 10 pick this year and that will add to our solid prospect group who should start being integrated into the lineup in the near future, we are approaching the next phase of the retool where we identify what we have with our prospect group and then go out and acquire what we still need with the extra cap space we will soon have and prospects that we don't feel like we need going forward.

Basically what I am trying to say is that it's too late in the process for a tear it down rebuild and we just need to continue forward with the plan, not deviate with your two options pointed out. It is a super frustrating process as a fan because we have to sit through the mediocre years but that should be coming to an end soon, at the very least we will have some exciting young players to watch grow. It is all part of the retooling process, which like or not, is the plan that was set in motion, we need to see it through not make any rash decisions based on a 10-15 game sample size.

Very good points.

Just wanted to clarify - I dont want things torn to the ground or a giant multi-piece pivot. One top 6 trade - probably interesting ways to do something with a tiny cost as well as things with tremendous cost. I think there is a time and place to make moves just for the sake of making moves and this is -not- one of those times. Things like this can be done with care and can be slight. I think it’s possible we could lean into the future a bit more than we have been -or- lean toward the present a bit more than we have been and in either outcome the results are better for us today, next year, and in 10. Even in the case where we invest in today slightly - I feel the reality of competitive hockey has tremendous benefits: we just aren’t doing that right now, but if we were; I believe that helps our long term a lot. It establishes a standard.

In the event that the team leaned into the future: one member of the top 6 being traded will not destroy this franchise. Wingers are easy to replace and if we’re already bad what really is the difference. “We got shutout again and also that one guy plays for somebody else too” hits just as hard as “we got shutout again”. I just would think there is enough valuable talent on this team that you could take a single step toward the future without causing the environment to deteriorate much further than it already is.

 

[Brian39]

Here are 2 things I would prefer we do instead of what we are doing:

1. If we’re going to embrace the brand of hockey where the opponent outshoots us 15-3 halfway through the first period, but at the same time you’re going to have the broadcast discuss playoff points and the teams in the wildcard race, advertise playoff stretch run ticket packages, then I’d suggest they should fill the depth chart. There’s a big hole that tarasenko used to fill that is currently sitting in non-nhl leagues. Don’t set the expectations of competition when there isn’t any. But since you’ve set the expectation of competitive hockey:

Go to the market and get a rental right now and play with a competitive group, even if it costs a little of the future. If you’re going to say it’s a competitive environment then field a full team. Not “we waived a guy so I could force a coach to put a guy who couldn’t crack the lineup into the lineup”. That’s developmental hockey.

In the last 8 months the team has replaced the entire left side of the defense, added a top 6 winger, and added 3 depth forwards (while moving out a few). I don't know what to tell you if you believe that the organization hasn't been addressing holes in the depth chart. Many of these pieces (Broberg, Holloway, and Fowler) were brought in at the cost of a little of the future, so I'm not quite sure how they don't fit your vision of what the organization should be doing. Are you advocating that we trade this year's 1st on a rental? If your stance is that the time to do that has passed, was there any point in the season where you were advocating for that?

We've fallen short of the expectations/goals this year for sure. Buch has fallen well short of expectations. So has Faulk. So did Saad. So has Leddy (due to injury). But I don't see how you can reasonably suggest that we should have seen all of that coming. Saad and Buch have scored at a rate that is 10+ goals below their historically steady production and both of them went from being good defensive players to below average ones. Faulk is scoring less despite being in more positions to generate offense and is defending at a lower level than in the past. Leddy was hurt for half the season and obviously couldn't contribute anything while out. We would absolutely be competing for a playoff spot if those 4 veterans had contributed at/near the reasonable expectation for their game.

It is also very much true that we have holes. We don't have an actual 3C and the bottom 6 scoring depth is mediocre-to-poor. But those were very much not the only holes heading into the season. And while those holes 100% would have prevented us from being a Cup contender, I they weren't large enough to prevent us from contending to finish 7th or 8th in the West if all the vets were playing up to expectation.

2. If you’re doing developmental hockey then trade a piece that is contributing at a high level to a contender so we can reduce our win expectation a bit, increasing our chance at talent lottery odds. I don’t think number 1 is an option. That needed to happen months ago.

Who?

Retaining on Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, or Buch shouldn't be remotely considered and there are very few contenders (if any) with the cap space to fit them all right now. Are you comfortable taking a well-below-market value return to get them out ASAP to improve the draft pick?

Schenn has a full NTC. So does Faulk. Fowler has a 4 team trade list. Binner has an 18 team no trade list that can effectively be wielded to prevent a trade to all the teams that have goaltending issues/questions. Each have term beyond this year that makes retention painful. Are you comfortable taking a below-market-value return to get them out ASAP to improve the draft pick?

Holloway is playing great and moving him would probably help our lottery odds. But at 23 years old do you not view him as part of a long term solution? What about Broberg and Neighbours?

Who left is playing at a high level? The next highest scorer was Saad and you are critical about waiving him.

I don't understand the rush or confusion here. A bunch of players are playing below expectation, which is the biggest reason the team has fallen short of expectations (which were to simply compete for a playoff spot and maybe make it). The team is falling down the standings in the midst of a slump. Why are we rushing a fire sale to ensure that we limit the market of potential buyers?

 

[LetsGoBooze]

The vision for this team is very clear and all that's needed is patience. If anything this year should give us hope that we trimmed a full year off the re-tool with how good Holloway/Broberg have been. DA has been clear this was gonna be a 4-5 year process and per his words we are currently in year 2. We DO NOT need to try to shortcut the process by selling picks or prospects to force our way into the playoffs for a year, horrible idea, this team is not one piece away from beating anyone. Thats mortgaging part of the longterm future for no reason. Nor should we be selling off a core piece to drop in the standings 2-4 spots, this draft is fairly weak and outside the top 3 we might be selling a more valuable piece than what we even would net 5 years down the road. I find if you align your overall expectations with all of this knowledge and vision its very easy to actually see how the plan is unfolding. I for one am ecstatic about how this retool year has turned out for two reasons:
1. both offer sheets seemingly hit
2. Were tracking towards another top 10 pick

 

[Reality Czech]

Very good points.

Just wanted to clarify - I dont want things torn to the ground or a giant multi-piece pivot. One top 6 trade - probably interesting ways to do something with a tiny cost as well as things with tremendous cost. I think there is a time and place to make moves just for the sake of making moves and this is -not- one of those times. Things like this can be done with care and can be slight. I think it’s possible we could lean into the future a bit more than we have been -or- lean toward the present a bit more than we have been and in either outcome the results are better for us today, next year, and in 10. Even in the case where we invest in today slightly - I feel the reality of competitive hockey has tremendous benefits: we just aren’t doing that right now, but if we were; I believe that helps our long term a lot. It establishes a standard.

In the event that the team leaned into the future: one member of the top 6 being traded will not destroy this franchise. Wingers are easy to replace and if we’re already bad what really is the difference. “We got shutout again and also that one guy plays for somebody else too” hits just as hard as “we got shutout again”. I just would think there is enough valuable talent on this team that you could take a single step toward the future without causing the environment to deteriorate much further than it already is.

Odd comment considering last night's game was pretty competitive. OK, so we got hammered for the first half of the game but battled back and took the current Cup favorite (according to Vegas) to overtime. The team showed heart not to just roll over and give up when the game looked bleak and had plenty of chances to win it in the 3rd and OT. What more can you ask for?

I think a lot of fans focus solely on the place in the standings and the W/L column, and forget how much parity there is in this league. The difference between 6th place and 10th place isn't that big really. It just takes a few things to go right or a few things to go wrong to determine if a team has what is considered a good season or bad season. Some might disagree but this team is absolutely good enough to make the playoffs (on paper), but the problem is too many things haven't gone right and key players have underperformed and/or been hurt. Plus the fact that there are probably more playoff-worthy teams than there are playoff spots most years, so when the Blues falter there are going to be other teams right there to take the spot.

I know it's been a frustrating season, but you make it sound like it's been a total disaster when in fact we're just a few games under .500. We've played some pretty good hockey and some pretty bad hockey, which is what most realistic fans expected would happen this year. I get the tank for a higher pick point of view, but try telling that to the players that invest so much time and energy in the hopes of making the playoffs. And as for the present, as Brian pointed out Army has been pretty active since last summer in trying to add players without sacrificing any of the key prospects we have such high hopes for. It's a tough spot to be in and frustrating for fans, but I think we just need to be patient and hope the youth can help take us to the next tier in the next couple of years.

I just re-read Brian's post and realized I'm basically repeating a lot of what he said, but it's too late and I'm gonna hit post reply anyway.

 

[BleedBlue14]

Odd comment considering last night's game was pretty competitive. OK, so we got hammered for the first half of the game but battled back and took the current Cup favorite (according to Vegas) to overtime. The team showed heart not to just roll over and give up when the game looked bleak and had plenty of chances to win it in the 3rd and OT. What more can you ask for?

I think a lot of fans focus solely on the place in the standings and the W/L column, and forget how much parity there is in this league. The difference between 6th place and 10th place isn't that big really. It just takes a few things to go right or a few things to go wrong to determine if a team has what is considered a good season or bad season. Some might disagree but this team is absolutely good enough to make the playoffs (on paper), but the problem is too many things haven't gone right and key players have underperformed and/or been hurt. Plus the fact that there are probably more playoff-worthy teams than there are playoff spots most years, so when the Blues falter there are going to be other teams right there to take the spot.

I know it's been a frustrating season, but you make it sound like it's been a total disaster when in fact we're just a few games under .500. We've played some pretty good hockey and some pretty bad hockey, which is what most realistic fans expected would happen this year. I get the tank for a higher pick point of view, but try telling that to the players that invest so much time and energy in the hopes of making the playoffs. And as for the present, as Brian pointed out Army has been pretty active since last summer in trying to add players without sacrificing any of the key prospects we have such high hopes for. It's a tough spot to be in and frustrating for fans, but I think we just need to be patient and hope the youth can help take us to the next tier in the next couple of years.

I just re-read Brian's post and realized I'm basically repeating a lot of what he said, but it's too late and I'm gonna hit post reply anyway.

I had one half cooked and realized I was doing the same thing so deleted it

We need time to figure out what we have in some of the younger guys on the roster here. I still think bigger picture we need to figure out how to get a 3C in here that has some ability of keeping a play running and keeping up with the play.

I was at the game last night and about puked when I saw Texier and Sunny out on PP1 with Thomas, Buch and Fowler. I don't mind Texier being given some looks but I don't know what good was expected to come from that unit.

 

[Reality Czech]

I had one half cooked and realized I was doing the same thing so deleted it

We need time to figure out what we have in some of the younger guys on the roster here. I still think bigger picture we need to figure out how to get a 3C in here that has some ability of keeping a play running and keeping up with the play.

I was at the game last night and about puked when I saw Texier and Sunny out on PP1 with Thomas, Buch and Fowler. I don't mind Texier being given some looks but I don't know what good was expected to come from that unit.

Yeah, I definitely don't get what Monty is doing with the PP lines. I know someone has to be the odd man out on the first unit, but not sure why it has to be Thomas. But it almost seems like Monty considers the other unit PP1 and the Thomas group PP2 or else he's just rotating both units and hoping one of them sticks.

 

[ds774622]

Yeah, I definitely don't get what Monty is doing with the PP lines. I know someone has to be the odd man out on the first unit, but not sure why it has to be Thomas. But it almost seems like Monty considers the other unit PP1 and the Thomas group PP2 or else he's just rotating both units and hoping one of them sticks.

Given how downright abysmal our special teams have been this year, I truly think we’re in the, “Let’s throw shit at the wall” phase and see what or who works.

 

[ezcreepin]

I'm a bit confused at the conversation going on. I think the plan and trajectory is going according to how it was put into place, minus missing the playoffs this year. Ideally, sure, we'd compete for a playoff spot (which btw we were doing before this bad stretch). This is just what happens when the core isn't fully assembled and you have aging vets on the team to help usher along younger players. There's a reason why teams like Buffalo, Arizona/Utah, Columbus, Ottawa, and Anaheim have been bad for so long; they haven't been able to draft well, help young players, or have gotten stupid with their cap and trading assets.

The Blues are doing what they should be doing which is attempt to be competitive to keep the team afloat since we are a mid market team while stockpiling draft picks and trading assets when it's the appropriate time. Trading Acciari, O'Reilly, and Barbashev when we did was best case scenario and most definitely the right time. Drafting who we have drafted was the appropriate strategy sans Jiricek as I'm not 100% sold on him yet. Signing offer sheets to young players was a savvy move to make for a rebuilding team. We are doing what we said we would do and people aren't liking the results. I'm sorry, but the team isn't good enough yet to actually compete yet and the Western conference got much stronger this year. Last year, I think we would likely make the playoffs if the teams were playing like they did and we made the moves we made, but the fact is there is no easy team to play in the west.

I understand the sentiment of either doing one thing or another, but that just isn't feasible with this team in this market. You have to consider the health of the team financially while also trying to build through the draft which is hard when you aren't drafting high. But you don't have to draft top 5 to be a legit contender, you have to pick and develop the right players and surround them with veterans and other talent to help them along. Of all the criticisms I've seen, the only one I would agree with right now (I'm not sure if someone has said it here) is that the team needs more sandpaper and gamers right now to keep the team morale higher than it is. Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, Leddy, Faulk, Holloway, Broberg - these guys are never going to bring their team into the fight like a Tkachuk will. You either need huge cohesion like the 2019 team, insane talent like the Oilers, or some guys who will absolutely stand up for themselves and teammates. Tucker and Schenn can't be the only guys, you need your top players to do that as well.

 

[Spektre]

I'm a bit confused at the conversation going on. I think the plan and trajectory is going according to how it was put into place, minus missing the playoffs this year. Ideally, sure, we'd compete for a playoff spot (which btw we were doing before this bad stretch). This is just what happens when the core isn't fully assembled and you have aging vets on the team to help usher along younger players. There's a reason why teams like Buffalo, Arizona/Utah, Columbus, Ottawa, and Anaheim have been bad for so long; they haven't been able to draft well, help young players, or have gotten stupid with their cap and trading assets.

The Blues are doing what they should be doing which is attempt to be competitive to keep the team afloat since we are a mid market team while stockpiling draft picks and trading assets when it's the appropriate time. Trading Acciari, O'Reilly, and Barbashev when we did was best case scenario and most definitely the right time. Drafting who we have drafted was the appropriate strategy sans Jiricek as I'm not 100% sold on him yet. Signing offer sheets to young players was a savvy move to make for a rebuilding team. We are doing what we said we would do and people aren't liking the results. I'm sorry, but the team isn't good enough yet to actually compete yet and the Western conference got much stronger this year. Last year, I think we would likely make the playoffs if the teams were playing like they did and we made the moves we made, but the fact is there is no easy team to play in the west.

I understand the sentiment of either doing one thing or another, but that just isn't feasible with this team in this market. You have to consider the health of the team financially while also trying to build through the draft which is hard when you aren't drafting high. But you don't have to draft top 5 to be a legit contender, you have to pick and develop the right players and surround them with veterans and other talent to help them along. Of all the criticisms I've seen, the only one I would agree with right now (I'm not sure if someone has said it here) is that the team needs more sandpaper and gamers right now to keep the team morale higher than it is. Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, Leddy, Faulk, Holloway, Broberg - these guys are never going to bring their team into the fight like a Tkachuk will. You either need huge cohesion like the 2019 team, insane talent like the Oilers, or some guys who will absolutely stand up for themselves and teammates. Tucker and Schenn can't be the only guys, you need your top players to do that as well.

It’s a false narrative to state the Blues can’t do a rebuild based on the financials.

Stillman’s group paid 130 million in 2012 to acquire the franchise. As of October 2024 the franchise was valued at 1.3 billion. That’s billion with a B.

The Stillman group is made up of incredibly wealthy individuals.

You can be on board with a retool vs rebuild for a number of reasons, but saying a rebuild isn’t possible because of the market and the financial implications doesn’t hold water.

 

[Majorityof1]

It’s a false narrative to state the Blues can’t do a rebuild based on the financials.

Stillman’s group paid 130 million in 2012 to acquire the franchise. As of October 2024 the franchise was valued at 1.3 billion. That’s billion with a B.

The Stillman group is made up of incredibly wealthy individuals.

You can be on board with a retool vs rebuild for a number of reasons, but saying a rebuild isn’t possible because of the market and the financial implications doesn’t hold water.

Couple things, team value is not cash on hand. You can't pay expenses with the value of the team. That value does you little good unless you sell or leverage the ownership stake.

Also, the value is subjective. The team is not publicly traded with shares selling daily to show what people would buy them for. The value of the team is a guess and it would depend on what someone would be willing to pay. Forbes has the value at $1.5B. But EBITDA at less than $10M. That's a 150x multiple which is insane for a business without tangible assets. They don't own the arena. There is s a huge vale in being a recognized NHL franchise, but Seattle paid $650M for that. There is a lot of room to get to $1.5 B from there.

Given that there are people willing to pay $650 for a franchise, it's definitely worth a lot more than they paid even if the valuation was only $650M. But I'll go back to the first point that they need liquid assets to pay debts. With an operating income of $10M, they don't gave a ton of leeway. Rich businessmen aren't in the habit of losing $$ as a strategy. Especially when losing money would most likely diminish that value you were talking about.

I do think we could survive a rebuild if needed. We'd be trading current dollars for hopefully future profits when we are successful. This is common in the growth stage of many businesses. But I can also see why businessmen wouldn't have an appetite for it if Forbes' financials are close to correct. I think the value of the franchise would have little impact on that decision either way. It would be more of a risk-reward analysis of current lisses against future profuts and a look at how much liquid assets they have to cover potential losses.

 

[Xerloris]

Stillman’s group paid 130 million in 2012 to acquire the franchise. As of October 2024 the franchise was valued at 1.3 billion. That’s billion with a B.

Claiming they have the financials and using this as part of why makes no sense to me. You have to sell something you own for it's worth to give you money to spend. Or am I missing something here, specifically about this right here.