Rutherford: Army extended

[EastonBlues22]

Even though I largely agree with the point you're making, I don't know that the bold is necessarily true. It's tough to argue that they should've beaten those championship Kings and Hawks teams to whom they lost in three consecutive years ('12-'14). The 2015 series with the Wild gave us the needed evidence that Jake Allen was not the guy onto whom the Blues should hitch their playoff wagon...but there's no finding that out until it's happened...and is repeated in '17, while Allen is getting badly outplayed by Rinne.

You'd like to have seen them have more success, but I don't know that you can say they should've had more considering the glaring hole in net that the Blues didn't manage to solve for until they stumbled ass-first into good fortunes in January of 2019, the culmination of a perfect storm across many fronts. They were hardly favorites in any of those series, and even Elliott taking the reins from Allen only took them so far in 2016 as their center-depth wasn't championship caliber until after the 2018 off-season moves.

Hockey is a random enough sport that the underdog in the playoffs wins plenty of times. It's a rare Vegas line indeed that gives the favorite even 2:1 odds against any top 5 team. A top 2-5 team in the West should have put up more of a fight than they generally did, and had at least some modest success somewhere in there. They weren't playing the #1 seed in the first round every year.

It was enough to get Hitchcock fired by his bud Armstrong in a pretty inglorious ways, so this clearly was an opinion shared by those within the organization's higher ranks as well. It's not a particularly controversial opinion that expectations weren't being met. They've said as much themselves publicly, on multiple occasions.

If the team construction simply wasn't up to par to be a true contender any of those years but the one that turned into a Cup, then I'm not seeing how that's a vote in favor of how well the team invested its futures assets.

 

[stl76]

You can take any GM's record over a long time period and find mistakes and things to complain about. In the context of evaluating a contract extension, I don't think "what could Armstrong have done better in the past?", is the right question. Instead I think a more relevant question is "who would do a better job moving forward?"

So if the issue folks have is lack of sustained playoff success or poor quality prospect pool, I wonder who would do a better job than Armstrong of continuing deep playoff runs while also improving the prospect pool in the future? If anyone has an answer, then please let's hear it. Frankly, I think that if an answer to that question existed then Armstrong wouldn't have been given an extension.

Again, I think it's pretty much a fact beyond reasonable question that Armstrong is an above average GM. Personally, I would go even further and say that Armstrong is one of the top GMs in the league.

 

[EastonBlues22]

We're two years away from our first Cup and enjoying perhaps the best decade in the team's history, yet some people still feel the need to complain and focus on the negatives. Just goes to show that some people are never satisfied no matter what happens. Now one Cup isn't good enough, apparently.

I'd say Army has done pretty well considering the lack of lottery draft picks and the fact that luring top FAs to St. Louis isn't usually easy. All of those other teams had to go through extended periods of sucking to acquire enough talent to win the Cup, while the Blues have been pretty competitive since Armstrong arrived. The Hawks missed the playoffs 9 out of 10 years before their run, the Pens were last place 4 years in a row, and the Kings missed the playoffs 6 years in a row.

The Blues were coming out of their lean years when Army became GM, but we were only bad enough to get two top ten picks and unlucky that EJ just happened to be the guy who was anointed the top pick the year we had it. Who knows what would have happened if there had been a Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, etc. level player that year instead of a non-franchise guy like EJ. Regardless, it seems kind of silly to look back and nitpick considering how things have worked out for us in recent years.

I stated pretty explicitly that this wasn't a jab at Armstrong, and that I was simply pointing out that there were valid points to both sides of a particular argument about the prospect pool situation. I wasn't even taking a side myself.

There's nothing "negative" about illustrating two different perspectives, unless you're so anti-discussion and entrenched in your own opinions that any sort of conflicting information or opinion processes as hostile and negative.

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

Jesus, some of you people can't do anything other than complain and look at things in the shittiest way possible. I keep seeing " the Blues haven't had enough post season success, they havent made it out of the first round etc etc etc".
Going back to 11-12 when we were consistently in the playoff picture.
11/12 - Lost to the Kings in the 2nd round. Kings went on to win the Cup
12/13- Lost to the Kings, who went to the Conference finals and lost to the Hawks who won the cup.
13/14- Lost to Chicago, who went to the Conference finals and lost to the Kings who won the cup.
14/15- Lost to Minnesota first round
15/16- Went to the Conference finals, lost to SJ
16/17- Lost to Nashville in the 2nd round who went on to play in the finals.
17/18- Missed playoffs
18/19- WON THE CUP.
19/20- Lost to Vancouver
20/21- Lost to Colorado

10 years. You could say that 3 of those were complete disappointments ( 14/15, 17/18, 19/20 ). 4 of them we lost to one of the top 2 teams in the league ( 11/12 thru 13/14 and 20/21 ). 2 of them were toss-ups ( 15/16, 16/17 ). 1 we achieved the ultimate goal.

What more do you f***ing want?

What more do we want?!

10 STRAIGHT CUPS IS WHAT WE WANT. THANKS FOR NOTHING ARMY #LOSER

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Let’s look at the Cup team. We had one legit superstar; Tarasenko. Pietrangelo was starting to approach that territory, but is not there yet and maybe never will be.

Schwartz and ROR are not superstars.

None of them were superstars, but ROR, Petro, Parayko were our top players (in that order). Not sure why you would mention Tank as biggest star on Cup team.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

None of them were superstars, but ROR, Petro, Parayko were our top players (in that order). Not sure why you would mention Tank as biggest star on Cup team.

Because that’s what the discussion is about.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Because that’s what the discussion is about.

How can you be a team's only superstar if you're not one of it's 3 best players?

 

[TruBlu]

A top 3 gm in the league...well deserved extension. Makes a midwest team a contender almost his entire tenure here. Makes fiscally responsible trades to keep the team competitive, keeps us under the cap, doesn't cave to local and national media attempts to force trades...The future looks bright.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

How can you be a team's only superstar if you're not one of it's 3 best players?

I would argue that Tarasenko’s status as a superstar dwindled these last two seasons. But even so, I think most fans and players around the league would consider Tarasenko a superstar and the others not.

This is regardless of playoff performance.

Eller was key to Washington’s Cup and he’s not a superstar.

 

[Celtic Note]

I guess I really don’t understand why we can’t both be appreciative and happy that we won the Cup and be frustrated and disappointed we didn’t do better or have better prospects.

Why is there such an aversion for multiple feelings or points of views? We can only think and feel one way. We have to oversimplify our lives to live in only one polarized bucket or the other.

This makes no sense to me.

 

[Celtic Note]

None of them were superstars, but ROR, Petro, Parayko were our top players (in that order). Not sure why you would mention Tank as biggest star on Cup team.

I would say that ROR played like one in the playoffs. Petro and Parayko played like stars, as did Schwartz. Binnington was right there at times too.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I would say that ROR played like one in the playoffs. Petro and Parayko played like stars, as did Schwartz. Binnington was right there at times too.

Fair enough. Which is why it is so odd to list Tarasenko as a Superstar when he was clearly not at that level.

 

[Celtic Note]

Fair enough. Which is why it is so odd to list Tarasenko as a Superstar when he was clearly not at that level.

I think he was at a point in time, but not during that run. He did contribute though.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I guess I really don’t understand why we can’t both be appreciative and happy that we won the Cup and be frustrated and disappointed we didn’t do better or have better prospects.

Why is there such an aversion for multiple feelings or points of views? We can only think and feel one way. We have to oversimplify our lives to live in only one polarized bucket or the other.

This makes no sense to me.

I’m ok with it. Conflicting feelings make the world around.

 

[Celtic Note]

I’m ok with it. Conflicting feelings make the world around.

I live in a paradox of my own mind. I would have to assume I am not the only one.

 

[BlueDream]

Your GM has to be a good evaluator of goaltending talent. That’s been one of Army’s biggest flaws. I think he is pretty awful at it frankly. Thankfully, our scouting team overcame that by drafting Binnington and then Binnington overcame the poor position he was thrown into by the GM to come in and steal the job when a unforeseen opportunity arose.

We could go into the many other goaltending mishaps that he has made, but I am not sure I personally care to rehash them.

I’d argue that he’s not bad at it, and it comes down to the fact that finding a legit #1 goalie is just really freakin hard.

I mean what has Armstrong done wrong there? He took a chance on Halak. It didn’t work out but was worth the gamble as the price wasn’t that high. He took a chance on Ryan Miller, which flopped. Okay that was one of his worst trades, but he doesn’t make that many bad ones.

He brought in Elliott for dirt cheap, got some great games out of him, and flipped him for what turned into Kyrou.

Allen was supposed to be the guy. He wasn’t. Since you credit the scouting staff for Binnington, then Allen is also on them. Not Armstrong’s fault.

I mean he’s generally given us competitive goaltending. With goalies you usually have to draft them, but it’s nearly impossible to tell who will pan out and who won’t. Trading for or signing a stud goalie in free agency isn’t very realistic, as nobody wants to let them go. So again, that’s more on amateur scouting than Armstrong.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I live in a paradox of my own mind. I would have to assume I am not the only one.

There’s another iteration in which the Blues win multiple Cups. That one’s kinda cool, but I’m ok with this iteration.

 

[ort]

Getting solid consistent goaltending in general is really hard in the modern NHL. It's always been hard, but it's even harder these days. It's so unpredictable.

 

[Ranksu]

I guess I really don’t understand why we can’t both be appreciative and happy that we won the Cup and be frustrated and disappointed we didn’t do better or have better prospects.

Why is there such an aversion for multiple feelings or points of views? We can only think and feel one way. We have to oversimplify our lives to live in only one polarized bucket or the other.

This makes no sense to me.

You aren't allowed to critize and think how make a team even better.

Ppl are so sensitive if their 'man' gets critized. It's too black and white to some.

Funny that those sensitive members will turn against everything up if you dare say anything against or think otherwise.

Haven't see single post in Blues board that have said they are unhappy Blues fan, 'cus we won a Cup.

It's just one crazy absolute view if you doesn't think one way of things you must be hating it. There cannot be grey area of things, just black and white.

I will start to to understand why there is only 2 big political party in USA.

Why we have in Finland 5 of them. Why we have democracy. Everybody will be heard left or right or the middle.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

I’d argue that he’s not bad at it, and it comes down to the fact that finding a legit #1 goalie is just really freakin hard.

I mean what has Armstrong done wrong there? He took a chance on Halak. It didn’t work out but was worth the gamble as the price wasn’t that high. He took a chance on Ryan Miller, which flopped. Okay that was one of his worst trades, but he doesn’t make that many bad ones.

He brought in Elliott for dirt cheap, got some great games out of him, and flipped him for what turned into Kyrou.

Allen was supposed to be the guy. He wasn’t. Since you credit the scouting staff for Binnington, then Allen is also on them. Not Armstrong’s fault.

I mean he’s generally given us competitive goaltending. With goalies you usually have to draft them, but it’s nearly impossible to tell who will pan out and who won’t. Trading for or signing a stud goalie in free agency isn’t very realistic, as nobody wants to let them go. So again, that’s more on amateur scouting than Armstrong.

You can’t give credit for Elliott without mentioning it cost us Bishop.

 

[Celtic Note]

I’d argue that he’s not bad at it, and it comes down to the fact that finding a legit #1 goalie is just really freakin hard.

I mean what has Armstrong done wrong there? He took a chance on Halak. It didn’t work out but was worth the gamble as the price wasn’t that high. He took a chance on Ryan Miller, which flopped. Okay that was one of his worst trades, but he doesn’t make that many bad ones.

He brought in Elliott for dirt cheap, got some great games out of him, and flipped him for what turned into Kyrou.

Allen was supposed to be the guy. He wasn’t. Since you credit the scouting staff for Binnington, then Allen is also on them. Not Armstrong’s fault.

I mean he’s generally given us competitive goaltending. With goalies you usually have to draft them, but it’s nearly impossible to tell who will pan out and who won’t. Trading for or signing a stud goalie in free agency isn’t very realistic, as nobody wants to let them go. So again, that’s more on amateur scouting than Armstrong.

I thought Halak was a poor target even before we traded for him. I made a comment alibg the lines of “someone will get excited about this one playoff run, trade for him and then be disappointed”. Then we traded for him. I think almost all of us ended up disappointed.

If Halak wasn’t a good target, then Miller was a terrible one for so many reasons. He wasn’t a good fit because he was a high shot guy. Also He was an overrated guy who wasn’t as good as some media and fans made him out to be.

He also held onto Elliot and Halak at the expense of Bishop. I was pretty pissed at the time they traded him, because we finally had a good goalie coming up and, despite their hot statistical year, Halak and Elliot were clearly not going to get the job done (we also could have allocated some of that goaltending money to address our scoring needs, but I digress). Army took the easy route going with what he knew and missed the tough call and it cost us doing nothing in the playoffs for a long time.

Allen was a good prospect. He turned into a serviceable goaltender, so I would say the scouts did well there. If Allen could have mastered the fundamentals of positioning he could have been a good starter. Unfortunately, he didn’t. While he was busy not making that happen, Army jumped the gun and handed him a starters contract. That isn’t in the scouting staff. That was bad professional scouting/ GM player assessment.

Also it’s not impossible to tell who will pan out and who will not. Once you see a goalie in the AHL it’s not that hard to be fairly accurate in telling if they will be NHL level or not. I knew Bishop, Allen and Binnington were likely NHL caliber players after watching them in the AHL. It turns out they did become them. Now, I only know a little about the goalie position, but it isn’t terribly hard to see if you watch these guys play and have some fundamental knowledge. I don’t think it is much different than judging forwards and defensemen once they hit AHL level. If anything I find goaltending easier at times.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I thought Halak was a poor target even before we traded for him. I made a comment alibg the lines of “someone will get excited about this one playoff run, trade for him and then be disappointed”. Then we traded for him. I think almost all of us ended up disappointed.

If Halak wasn’t a good target, then Miller was a terrible one for so many reasons. He wasn’t a good fit because he was a high shot guy. Also He was an overrated guy who wasn’t as good as some media and fans made him out to be.

He also held onto Elliot and Halak at the expense of Bishop. I was pretty pissed at the time they traded him, because we finally had a good goalie coming up and, despite their hot statistical year, Halak and Elliot were clearly not going to get the job done (we also could have allocated some of that goaltending money to address our scoring needs, but I digress). Army took the easy route going with what he knew and missed the tough call and it cost us doing nothing in the playoffs for a long time.

Allen was a good prospect. He turned into a serviceable goaltender, so I would say the scouts did well there. If Allen could have mastered the fundamentals of positioning he could have been a good starter. Unfortunately, he didn’t. While he was busy not making that happen, Army jumped the gun and handed him a starters contract. That isn’t in the scouting staff. That was bad professional scouting/ GM player assessment.

Also it’s not impossible to tell who will pan out and who will not. Once you see a goalie in the AHL it’s not that hard to be fairly accurate in telling if they will be NHL level or not. I knew Bishop, Allen and Binnington were likely NHL caliber players after watching them in the AHL. It turns out they did become them. Now, I only know a little about the goalie position, but it isn’t terribly hard to see if you watch these guys play and have some fundamental knowledge. I don’t think it is much different than judging forwards and defensemen once they hit AHL level. If anything I find goaltending easier at times.

Holy revisionist history, Batman!

 

[Thallis]

Holy revisionist history, Batman!

What's revisionist about it, the Miller stuff? You weren't around here then, but the consensus on this board was negative and that we paid way too much for Miller at the time of the trade. Every thing he said there matches how this board felt at the time other than the Halak stuff, but he qualified that as his own opinion.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

What's revisionist about it, the Miller stuff? You weren't around here then, but the consensus on this board was negative and that we paid way too much for Miller at the time of the trade. Every thing he said there matches how this board felt at the time other than the Halak stuff, but he qualified that as his own opinion.

I can’t say fir sure that this is all 20/20 hindsight but sure feels like it. Consensus at time was Halak trade was smart move. Miller trade less so. Bishop had proven nothing and was out of options. If he had shown better than Elliott he wouldn’t have been dealt. He just wasn’t that good at that point. He didn’t do much in Ottawa either. To rip Blues for his subsequent success is unfair. And to top it off, he says scouting goalies is easy (it’s not or so many nhl teams wouldn’t struggle at it) and he is really good at it which seems fairly unlikely that he has better eye than nhl scouts. So yeah, looking backwards it’s all clear.

 

[kimzey59]

What's revisionist about it, the Miller stuff? You weren't around here then, but the consensus on this board was negative and that we paid way too much for Miller at the time of the trade. Every thing he said there matches how this board felt at the time other than the Halak stuff, but he qualified that as his own opinion.

My memory must be failing me.
As I recall it; there were maybe 5 people here that were against the Miller trade(I was one of them and pretty distinctly remember having some heated discussions on here about how he wasn't as good as people thought he was). The overwhelming majority thought we were getting some Stud, Future HOF goalie on par with a Hasek or Fuhr.

I certainly don't remember the "consensus on this board was negative" angle being portrayed here. It took him imploding against Chicago before people finally soured on him. And even then you had a contingent that wanted to bring him back to see if a year with the team would do him any good.