Rutherford: Army extended

[simon IC]

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.

I was in the group that was against the Miller trade. Not just because he was overrated, (which I thought he was!), but because I thought there were other areas that needed addressing. We needed a #1C, and the D needed shoring up. Armstrong addressed the wrong issues. I was also ecstatic when we didn't extend him and saved a 1st round pick.

 

[Frenzy31]

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.

I don't remember all that many people being thrilled about the Miller trade. I remember the huge arguments with the Sabres fan base that were pretty over the top. I remember being more happy about the Ott addition, as I felt he was going to be a solid bottom 6 fit. It was an all in move that failed - and I think the media was more excited about it then the fans. It was his biggest all in move that failed. Other ones were very solid. Jaybo, Schenn,

He has traded first rounds to bring in players that would be with the team over the long haul. He may add a depth guy at the deadline, but not anything exciting.

Armstrong has made some solid signings and some lousy ones. He has made some great trades and some lousy one. Most of his signings have been good. Most of his trades have been good or at least fair market value. He has been a solid GM. Not perfect, but very solid. I would say he is somewhere in the top 10 GMs in the league. I think he has earned a new contact. If Bill Armstrong were still here and the heir apparent, then maybe you could make a point, but we dont have him.

The biggest gripe you can make is sometimes he jumps the gun on a contact extension (Leterhara and maybe Allen) and may not have been patient enough with Bishop. But I can't think a really bad contact on the books beyond Jori L. Maybe some slight overpayment for Allen/Binnington, but not much.

2 first rounders in 2010
0 in 2011 (but we did have 3 2nds)
1 First rounder in 2012
2 2nd rounders in 2013
1 first rounder in 2014
0 first rounders in 2015
1 first rounder in 2016, 2 2nds
2 first rounds in 2017 (no 2nds)
1 first rounder in 2018
0 first rounders in 2019
1 first rounder in 2020 (no 2nd)

While he has traded away some first rounders - we have had 10 since 2010. We can talk about a low depth prospect pool - which is fair. But it isn't because of the lack of 1 rounders, but more of draft position. Schwartz was the last pick we made in the top 15. We have done reasonably well with our drafting - considering the state of many other teams in the league. Our drafting, considering where we draft has been very solid. We get 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders that do hit.

 

[Celtic Note]

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.

I really don’t appreciate the insinuation that I am being dishonest or lying.

If you don’t agree with my opinions, I can respect that.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don’t think you can just assert you were against the Halak trade without giving an alternate for how you’d acquire a starting goalie then. People forget how frustrating it was to have a pretty solid team with no starting caliber goalie in those days. The price to acquire Halak was cheap. The market wasn’t so pretty just then.

 

[Thallis]

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.

Most of us were saying that we'd take him, but anything more than a 2nd was an overpay. The first and also getting Ott back was pretty widely panned.

Edit: Alright I tracked down the thread and it was mostly me complaining about Ott in that thread . Reactions were mixed/leaning negative until the condition was announced that flipped a few of the positive posters to the negative side.

Confirmed with Link: - [STL/BUF]J.Halak, C.Stewart, W.Carrier, 1st & 3rd for R.Miller & S.Ott

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I really don’t appreciate the insinuation that I am being dishonest or lying.

If you don’t agree with my opinions, I can respect that.

I didn’t mean to imply you were lying. Sorry. Just think that it’s easy to have 20/20 hindsight.

 

[Celtic Note]

I didn’t mean to imply you were lying. Sorry. Just think that it’s easy to have 20/20 hindsight.

I appreciate the apology.

I agree that hindsight is easy, however I was noting thoughts that I had on or before those events and then attempted to show the relationship between what I thought at the time and the outcomes proceeding the decisions were made by Army/the club. These are positions I have held since and later reinforced by the outcomes.

To clarify, I don’t think I am some guru at all things goaltending, rather that I would expect that if I can see these things, then professionals can/should see them and more. After all, I am simply a self taught person with a basic understanding of the position. We have posters here that are very wise about the position (certainly more so than me) and I have been fortunate to learn from here. I would expect there are many professionals out there who take that to the next level and have a more accurate analysis than I can provide, just as there are posters who can undoubtedly do the same.

On the matter of talent evaluation, I would like to clarify that the qualifier for being able to relatively accurately evaluate goaltending talent is based on seeing them with AHL experience. I think you can start to get the idea of the potential and future success from earlier levels, but it’s harder to do and the AHL is the first time you can see these guys against a fast moving game. Things become more apparent then. In all fairness though, the same is true for forwards and defensemen.

I firmly believe that if fans invested in their understanding of the position (as much as the other positions) and watched our goalies with that understanding, we would have less claims about the difficulty of assessing the position. I also think there is an unfairness to assessing the position because of the very large differences in scale. There are so many more forwards and D then goalies. So when we get predictions wrong (assuming we have a similar foundational understanding across all positions), the goalies stand out because there are fewer to predict/evaluate and therefore it’s easier to forget all the forwards and D we inaccurately predicted. 1 right out of 4 goalies stands out in the mind more than 4 defensemen right out of 16 assessments. We often tell ourselves that getting 4 right is better than 1, despite the accuracy percentage being the same. These are theoretical examples, but I hope it illustrates the thinking.

 

[Celtic Note]

I don’t think you can just assert you were against the Halak trade without giving an alternate for how you’d acquire a starting goalie then. People forget how frustrating it was to have a pretty solid team with no starting caliber goalie in those days. The price to acquire Halak was cheap. The market wasn’t so pretty just then.

Fair point.

I guess I am of the mindset that simply plugging a hole with what is easily obtainable is not the right move if the ultimate goal is winning a Cup. Halak to me was not going to be the right fit. So my question is why obtain him? Couldn’t you better use the assets, whether trading them or holding onto them? I honestly think that if we signed a guy like Mike Smith, our history wouldn’t have been any worse. If you need some duck tape to patch a hole until you find the right piece, then I would prefer that route. Plus you were paying a premium for Halak due to his hot run that was not sustainable IMO. Sure the assets didn’t amount to much, but I would have rather put them to a piece that was a better fit, even if it wasn’t for a goaltender.

 

[Brian39]

I have zero criticisms about the current prospect pool. At the end of the day, the prospect pool is shallow because Army went out and got an above-average 1C and a 1C/2C tweener in their primes. ROR had 5 years on a great cap number while Schenn had 3 years on a great cap number which was followed up by an 8 year extension that will hurt down the line. But worst case scenario, the sum result on Schenn is 5 years at a good-to-great AAV, a couple years on a 'meh' AAV and then 4 years of vast overpayment. That is absolutely a better long-term contribution than the expected medium-and-long-term contributions of picks number 14, 26, 27, 31, and 49 (spread out over 6 years). Especially when you factor in the large amount of dead cap money taken off the books in those trades.

Go look at the players available at pick #14 in 2018. The Flyers picked Joel Farabee. He has played 107 NHL games. No one drafted after him has hit the 100 NHL game mark. It is still way too early to give up on every player in that draft class, but there are going to be a lot of busts among the players that were realistic options for us at pick 14. I like Farabee, but I'm not sold that he will ever be capable of contributing Schenn's ultimate/final contribution to the Blues. Look at the guys drafted at 27 or later in 2017. We traded up to get Kostin at 31, but even assuming we would have picked another guy in that range, I don't see many huge difference makers. Even with the benefit of hindsight, we would have had to have made absolutely perfect draft selections for those two picks to have a better net long term contribution than the addition of Schenn and jettison of Lehtera.

Do I need to go into detail like that on the ROR trade? Is anyone claiming that Tage Thompson, anyone we might have drafted in the mid-late 1st round, and anyone drafted in the 2nd round in 21 would have been better for the team than 5 years of ROR?

I make both of those trades ten out of ten times. Those trades re-opened a Cup window. I don't like all of the decisions made in relation to that window, but it is pretty undeniable that those two trades opened a Cup window. Army watched some very good teams he assembled fall short due in large part to a lack of top end center talent. On 6/30/16, the center group was Backes/Stastny/Lehtera. on 7/1/18 the center group was ROR/Schenn/Bozak. He used a lot of futures assets to do it, but he fixed a massive shortcoming at a position that is notoriously difficult to obtain top end talent without utilizing top 5-10 draft picks. We're entering year 4 since ROR was acquired and all three of those centers are still on the roster (with Bozak's role as 3C going to a home-grown prospect). He didn't mortgage the future with those trades. He turned futures into a long-term solution. The center group is the strongest component of the team and should absolutely be 'contender-caliber' for the next 2 years (even if the Schenn of last year is the new normal). Over the next 2 years, the ROR/Schenn/Thomas combo will combine for $16.8M against the cap. Good luck building a better group of top 9 centers for less money unless you have a 1st overall pick on his ELC.

Are the Blues the #1 team in the NHL under Army's tenure? Of course not. But that shouldn't be the benchmark for the GM deserving a multi-year extension. In Army's 11 years as the GM, 7 teams have won the Cup. We are one of them. Each of the 6 other teams have at least one player who was a top 2 draft pick. We are the only team since 2008 to win a Cup without at least one player that the club drafted at 1st or 2nd overall. The Bruins came close and you can argue that Seguin was a passenger at just 19 years old. But good luck arguing that Sid, Malkin, Kane, Doughty, Ovi, Hedman and Stamkos weren't foundational pieces of those teams. We've been to 2 Conference/Semi Finals since he took over as GM. 12 teams have done that through his tenure as GM. We are 5th in overall regular season standings points since he took over as GM. We've made the playoffs in 9 of his 11 seasons as GM, are one of 12 teams with more than 1 trip to the semis during his tenure and are one of 7 teams to win a Cup. How is that not the resume of a top 10 GM?

Again, I have plenty of issues with several decisions he has made. But he is a top 10 NHL GM by pretty much every metric and top 10 GMs deserve to be extended.

 

[Celtic Note]

I have zero criticisms about the current prospect pool. At the end of the day, the prospect pool is shallow because Army went out and got an above-average 1C and a 1C/2C tweener in their primes. ROR had 5 years on a great cap number while Schenn had 3 years on a great cap number which was followed up by an 8 year extension that will hurt down the line. But worst case scenario, the sum result on Schenn is 5 years at a good-to-great AAV, a couple years on a 'meh' AAV and then 4 years of vast overpayment. That is absolutely a better long-term contribution than the expected medium-and-long-term contributions of picks number 14, 26, 27, 31, and 49 (spread out over 6 years). Especially when you factor in the large amount of dead cap money taken off the books in those trades.

Go look at the players available at pick #14 in 2018. The Flyers picked Joel Farabee. He has played 107 NHL games. No one drafted after him has hit the 100 NHL game mark. It is still way too early to give up on every player in that draft class, but there are going to be a lot of busts among the players that were realistic options for us at pick 14. I like Farabee, but I'm not sold that he will ever be capable of contributing Schenn's ultimate/final contribution to the Blues. Look at the guys drafted at 27 or later in 2017. We traded up to get Kostin at 31, but even assuming we would have picked another guy in that range, I don't see many huge difference makers. Even with the benefit of hindsight, we would have had to have made absolutely perfect draft selections for those two picks to have a better net long term contribution than the addition of Schenn and jettison of Lehtera.

Do I need to go into detail like that on the ROR trade? Is anyone claiming that Tage Thompson, anyone we might have drafted in the mid-late 1st round, and anyone drafted in the 2nd round in 21 would have been better for the team than 5 years of ROR?

I make both of those trades ten out of ten times. Those trades re-opened a Cup window. I don't like all of the decisions made in relation to that window, but it is pretty undeniable that those two trades opened a Cup window. Army watched some very good teams he assembled fall short due in large part to a lack of top end center talent. On 6/30/16, the center group was Backes/Stastny/Lehtera. on 7/1/18 the center group was ROR/Schenn/Bozak. He used a lot of futures assets to do it, but he fixed a massive shortcoming at a position that is notoriously difficult to obtain top end talent without utilizing top 5-10 draft picks. We're entering year 4 since ROR was acquired and all three of those centers are still on the roster (with Bozak's role as 3C going to a home-grown prospect). He didn't mortgage the future with those trades. He turned futures into a long-term solution. The center group is the strongest component of the team and should absolutely be 'contender-caliber' for the next 2 years (even if the Schenn of last year is the new normal). Over the next 2 years, the ROR/Schenn/Thomas combo will combine for $16.8M against the cap. Good luck building a better group of top 9 centers for less money unless you have a 1st overall pick on his ELC.

Are the Blues the #1 team in the NHL under Army's tenure? Of course not. But that shouldn't be the benchmark for the GM deserving a multi-year extension. In Army's 11 years as the GM, 7 teams have won the Cup. We are one of them. Each of the 6 other teams have at least one player who was a top 2 draft pick. We are the only team since 2008 to win a Cup without at least one player that the club drafted at 1st or 2nd overall. The Bruins came close and you can argue that Seguin was a passenger at just 19 years old. But good luck arguing that Sid, Malkin, Kane, Doughty, Ovi, Hedman and Stamkos weren't foundational pieces of those teams. We've been to 2 Conference/Semi Finals since he took over as GM. 12 teams have done that through his tenure as GM. We are 5th in overall regular season standings points since he took over as GM. We've made the playoffs in 9 of his 11 seasons as GM, are one of 12 teams with more than 1 trip to the semis during his tenure and are one of 7 teams to win a Cup. How is that not the resume of a top 10 GM?

Again, I have plenty of issues with several decisions he has made. But he is a top 10 NHL GM by pretty much every metric and top 10 GMs deserve to be extended.

Great breakdown Brian and agreed on all fronts.

We can go into all the moves I didn’t like and there are many, but ultimately Army righted the ship of the 1st core and won us a Cup. His trades for ROR, Schenn, JBo and now Buch were masterful. The previous three were instrumental in our Cup win.

 

[TheDizee]

if our recent playoff history isnt viewed as good by some, id love to see how they think about teams like Ref Jose and Colorado.

 

[Louie the Blue]

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.

Except Hitchcock didn’t lose his job to PO performance. If he did, it would have been after losing to the Wild in 2015.

He lost his job because Armstrong wanted to transition to younger players and away from Backes on top of Hitchcock wanting a year-to-year contract situation that coincided with fielding a younger roster, leading Yeo to be the coach in waiting.

When the team started to see a noticeable dip in its performance in early 2017, Hitchcock was given the boot to make way for Yeo.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

if our recent playoff history isnt viewed as good by some, id love to see how they think about teams like Ref Jose and Colorado.

You're slippin', Dizee!! It's RefAlanche!!

 

[Majorityof1]

I have zero criticisms about the current prospect pool. At the end of the day, the prospect pool is shallow because Army went out and got an above-average 1C and a 1C/2C tweener in their primes. ROR had 5 years on a great cap number while Schenn had 3 years on a great cap number which was followed up by an 8 year extension that will hurt down the line. But worst case scenario, the sum result on Schenn is 5 years at a good-to-great AAV, a couple years on a 'meh' AAV and then 4 years of vast overpayment. That is absolutely a better long-term contribution than the expected medium-and-long-term contributions of picks number 14, 26, 27, 31, and 49 (spread out over 6 years). Especially when you factor in the large amount of dead cap money taken off the books in those trades.

Go look at the players available at pick #14 in 2018. The Flyers picked Joel Farabee. He has played 107 NHL games. No one drafted after him has hit the 100 NHL game mark. It is still way too early to give up on every player in that draft class, but there are going to be a lot of busts among the players that were realistic options for us at pick 14. I like Farabee, but I'm not sold that he will ever be capable of contributing Schenn's ultimate/final contribution to the Blues. Look at the guys drafted at 27 or later in 2017. We traded up to get Kostin at 31, but even assuming we would have picked another guy in that range, I don't see many huge difference makers. Even with the benefit of hindsight, we would have had to have made absolutely perfect draft selections for those two picks to have a better net long term contribution than the addition of Schenn and jettison of Lehtera.

Do I need to go into detail like that on the ROR trade? Is anyone claiming that Tage Thompson, anyone we might have drafted in the mid-late 1st round, and anyone drafted in the 2nd round in 21 would have been better for the team than 5 years of ROR?

I make both of those trades ten out of ten times. Those trades re-opened a Cup window. I don't like all of the decisions made in relation to that window, but it is pretty undeniable that those two trades opened a Cup window. Army watched some very good teams he assembled fall short due in large part to a lack of top end center talent. On 6/30/16, the center group was Backes/Stastny/Lehtera. on 7/1/18 the center group was ROR/Schenn/Bozak. He used a lot of futures assets to do it, but he fixed a massive shortcoming at a position that is notoriously difficult to obtain top end talent without utilizing top 5-10 draft picks. We're entering year 4 since ROR was acquired and all three of those centers are still on the roster (with Bozak's role as 3C going to a home-grown prospect). He didn't mortgage the future with those trades. He turned futures into a long-term solution. The center group is the strongest component of the team and should absolutely be 'contender-caliber' for the next 2 years (even if the Schenn of last year is the new normal). Over the next 2 years, the ROR/Schenn/Thomas combo will combine for $16.8M against the cap. Good luck building a better group of top 9 centers for less money unless you have a 1st overall pick on his ELC.

Are the Blues the #1 team in the NHL under Army's tenure? Of course not. But that shouldn't be the benchmark for the GM deserving a multi-year extension. In Army's 11 years as the GM, 7 teams have won the Cup. We are one of them. Each of the 6 other teams have at least one player who was a top 2 draft pick. We are the only team since 2008 to win a Cup without at least one player that the club drafted at 1st or 2nd overall. The Bruins came close and you can argue that Seguin was a passenger at just 19 years old. But good luck arguing that Sid, Malkin, Kane, Doughty, Ovi, Hedman and Stamkos weren't foundational pieces of those teams. We've been to 2 Conference/Semi Finals since he took over as GM. 12 teams have done that through his tenure as GM. We are 5th in overall regular season standings points since he took over as GM. We've made the playoffs in 9 of his 11 seasons as GM, are one of 12 teams with more than 1 trip to the semis during his tenure and are one of 7 teams to win a Cup. How is that not the resume of a top 10 GM?

Again, I have plenty of issues with several decisions he has made. But he is a top 10 NHL GM by pretty much every metric and top 10 GMs deserve to be extended.

First off, nobody but the trolls is saying he shouldn't have been extended. My only contention was that I think a rebuild is coming, and I don't want Armstrong choosing to try to extend the competitive window when that time finally comes. I think he would struggle in sacrificing now for the future. He has never been a GM for a team that is not pushing to compete. He left his last team absolutely decimated from it.

I have a ton of respect for you, Brian, but you can't justify our bad prospect pool by saying we traded away players in good moves, and then proceed to say how bad the prospects we traded away are. That is having it both ways. They were great trades precisely because we gave away so little. As you stated, the prospect pool would still be very meh without them. So if our prospect pool would still be crap without those trades, then that is not the reason our prospect pool is crap.

I am not critiquing the moves, or any moves. I am saying Armstrong pushed for contention by default and he is unwilling to gamble on upside when he does pick. He wants safe NHL prospects to plug in cheaply on the 4th line to continue being able to pay to bring in talent to push for the cup. In order to stay competitive, he signed the wrong players to long contracts that is going to make a rebuild a very likely eventuality. He has never shown the ability to sacrifice the now for later, outside of the one time he traded Stastny. I do not trust him to do it wholesale when the time comes.

Last year we absolutely should have traded players at the deadline. Now I will admit this could have been an ownership decision. We could have desperately needed the playoff revenue due to no fans all year. But no fans also meant playoff revenue wasn't as much. We had no business even trying to compete last year. The year before,we also should have traded He-who-must-not-be-named if we weren't going to make a good faith offer to sign him. That is a little harder move to make, as we were ostensibly a good team and the Covid break might have hurt an otherwise deep run. But we could have gotten game changing prospects for him. I don't think Armstrong really tried that hard to sign him because he knew he wanted too much from the start. Knowing that, he absolutely should have gotten the haul he would have gotten for him, even at the expense of one year.

GMs can take one of three basic approaches: (1) Sacrifice the future for a run now, (2) maintain a balance between the now and the future, or (3) sacrifice the now for the future. Armstrong does very well in 1, not so well in 2, and has never even tried 3. Barring a miracle or incredibly shrewd GMing, we are heading for 3. You can't be in 1 for too long without needing to hit 3 eventually. Armstrong has earned a shot to extend our window in 1/2. But I don't want him to be in charge when its time to go 3.

 

[Zezel’s Pretzels]

He has never shown the ability to sacrifice the now for later, outside of the one time he traded Stastny.

Shattenkirk?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

First off, nobody but the trolls is saying he shouldn't have been extended. My only contention was that I think a rebuild is coming, and I don't want Armstrong choosing to try to extend the competitive window when that time finally comes. I think he would struggle in sacrificing now for the future. He has never been a GM for a team that is not pushing to compete. He left his least team absolutely decimated from it.

I have a ton of respect for you, Brian, but you can't justify our bad prospect pool by saying we traded away players in good moves, and then proceed to say how bad the prospects we traded away are. That is having it both ways. They were great trades precisely because we gave away so little. As you stated, the prospect pool would still be very meh without them. So if our prospect pool would still be crap without those trades, then that is not the reason our prospect pool is crap.

I am not critiquing the moves, or any moves. I am saying Armstrong pushed for contention by default and he is unwilling to gamble on upside when he does pick. He wants safe NHL prospects to plug in cheaply on the 4th line to continue being able to pay to bring in talent to push for the cup. In order to stay competitive, he signed the wrong players to long contracts that is going to make a rebuild a very likely eventuality. He has never shown the ability to sacrifice the now for later, outside of the one time he traded Stastny. I do not trust him to do it wholesale when the time comes.

Last year we absolutely should have traded players at the deadline. Now I will admit this could have been an ownership decision. We could have desperately needed the playoff revenue due to no fans all year. But no fans also meant playoff revenue wasn't as much. We had no business even trying to compete last year. The year before,we also should have traded He-who-must-not-be-named if we weren't going to make a good faith offer to sign him. That is a little harder move to make, as we were ostensibly a good team and the Covid break might have hurt an otherwise deep run. But we could have gotten game changing prospects for him. I don't think Armstrong really tried that hard to sign him because he knew he wanted too much from the start. Knowing that, he absolutely should have gotten the haul he would have gotten for him, even at the expense of one year.

GMs can take one of three basic approaches: (1) Sacrifice the future for a run now, (2) maintain a balance between the now and the future, or (3) sacrifice the now for the future. Armstrong does very well in 1, not so well in 2, and has never even tried 3. Barring a miracle or incredibly shrewd GMing, we are heading for 3. You can't be in 1 for too long without needing to hit 3 eventually. Armstrong has earned a shot to extend our window in 1/2. But I don't want him to be in charge when its time to go 3.

What I think sometimes is missed is that Army places fairly little value on picks outside of top 40 or so. I think this is analytics driven, because expected value really falls off at that point. So when we look at whether Army should have sold off, he traded Stats and Shatty and got 1sts. Wondering if reason he didn't sell last year was bc he couldn't get high enough pick for any of our pending FAs?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

First off, nobody but the trolls is saying he shouldn't have been extended. My only contention was that I think a rebuild is coming, and I don't want Armstrong choosing to try to extend the competitive window when that time finally comes. I think he would struggle in sacrificing now for the future. He has never been a GM for a team that is not pushing to compete. He left his least team absolutely decimated from it.

I have a ton of respect for you, Brian, but you can't justify our bad prospect pool by saying we traded away players in good moves, and then proceed to say how bad the prospects we traded away are. That is having it both ways. They were great trades precisely because we gave away so little. As you stated, the prospect pool would still be very meh without them. So if our prospect pool would still be crap without those trades, then that is not the reason our prospect pool is crap.

I am not critiquing the moves, or any moves. I am saying Armstrong pushed for contention by default and he is unwilling to gamble on upside when he does pick. He wants safe NHL prospects to plug in cheaply on the 4th line to continue being able to pay to bring in talent to push for the cup. In order to stay competitive, he signed the wrong players to long contracts that is going to make a rebuild a very likely eventuality. He has never shown the ability to sacrifice the now for later, outside of the one time he traded Stastny. I do not trust him to do it wholesale when the time comes.

Last year we absolutely should have traded players at the deadline. Now I will admit this could have been an ownership decision. We could have desperately needed the playoff revenue due to no fans all year. But no fans also meant playoff revenue wasn't as much. We had no business even trying to compete last year. The year before,we also should have traded He-who-must-not-be-named if we weren't going to make a good faith offer to sign him. That is a little harder move to make, as we were ostensibly a good team and the Covid break might have hurt an otherwise deep run. But we could have gotten game changing prospects for him. I don't think Armstrong really tried that hard to sign him because he knew he wanted too much from the start. Knowing that, he absolutely should have gotten the haul he would have gotten for him, even at the expense of one year.

GMs can take one of three basic approaches: (1) Sacrifice the future for a run now, (2) maintain a balance between the now and the future, or (3) sacrifice the now for the future. Armstrong does very well in 1, not so well in 2, and has never even tried 3. Barring a miracle or incredibly shrewd GMing, we are heading for 3. You can't be in 1 for too long without needing to hit 3 eventually. Armstrong has earned a shot to extend our window in 1/2. But I don't want him to be in charge when its time to go 3.

Also, I think it's silly to say he is looking to draft 4th liners. Every one of our 1st round picks has projected as top 6 player. Some (Tage) fell well short. Some the jury is still out on (Bokk, also dealt, and the last couple). Some might bust. But every one of these guys had top 6 potential.

And I know some folks characterized Neighbours as grinder, but that too me is way off. He is powerful forward with offensive upside. Now he might not get there, but read all their quotes about him and look at his numbers. He wasn't drafted to be 4th liner. He was drafted to be Backes or Steen or Oshie type.

 

[Frenzy31]

What I think sometimes is missed is that Army places fairly little value on picks outside of top 40 or so. I think this is analytics driven, because expected value really falls off at that point. So when we look at whether Army should have sold off, he traded Stats and Shatty and got 1sts. Wondering if reason he didn't sell last year was bc he couldn't get high enough pick for any of our pending FAs?

Money. We trade off our FAs then no way we make the playoffs. Hockey is still a business. It sends the wrong message to the team. Some playoff revenue helps.

Majority. This is to your point. I think Armstong has. grown a lot since his Dallas days. I think he could lead this team in a rebuild, but I think we are a contender right now and for atleast the next four years based on his recent contracts.

I think we are a much stronger team on paper then we were last season and I do think Tarasenko finished up this season with the team or he would not have moved on from Sanford.

 

[Zezel’s Pretzels]

What I think sometimes is missed is that Army places fairly little value on picks outside of top 40 or so. I think this is analytics driven, because expected value really falls off at that point. So when we look at whether Army should have sold off, he traded Stats and Shatty and got 1sts. Wondering if reason he didn't sell last year was bc he couldn't get high enough pick for any of our pending FAs?

Good point, but who was willing to buy expiring FA’s for high draft picks last year? The pandemic driven flat cap probably killed that. Pardon me if I don’t remember how many pending FAs fetched 1st or 2nd round picks. It was a historically tough sell given the external circumstances. And it’s another reason why anyone second guessing why DA didn’t “sell” last year isn’t accounting for the fact that he probably tried, but also had to weigh that the shitty returns weren’t as appealing as letting that group have one more chance at capturing lightning in a bottle.

 

[TheDizee]

You're slippin', Dizee!! It's RefAlanche!!

refs were shit in that series but our entire team was injured so it wouldnt have mattered anyways.

the avs and sharks are both teams that choke worse than we have done and have 0 cups in that same timespan to show for it. from what i see the army haters are just mad at him because of the Pietrangelo fiasco. the funny thing is with that situation is that both sides are to blame. i think both sides could have done things differently. however ultimately the guy who had triplets and a st louis wife decided to chase the extra cash for the family friendly atmosphere of las vegas.

and i still do not want that contract on my team in a league with a salary cap that is stagnant

 

[Celtic Note]

What I think sometimes is missed is that Army places fairly little value on picks outside of top 40 or so. I think this is analytics driven, because expected value really falls off at that point. So when we look at whether Army should have sold off, he traded Stats and Shatty and got 1sts. Wondering if reason he didn't sell last year was bc he couldn't get high enough pick for any of our pending FAs?

This is an interesting point. Army has historically played up the value of 2nd rounders. I never hear much beyond that, which is fair because the hit rate is so bad. But, it also means you aren’t swinging for home runs and therefore rarely hit one 3rd round and beyond.

 

[BlueSeal]

I felt Halak never got a chance to show how much of a playoff warrior he could be with us. Trading for Miller should have been an unnecessary ‘upgrade’ but imo he turned out as bad as Lalime for us.

When I look at the past I have to remind myself that all the trades, good and bad, led to us winning the Cup, so I can’t complain. One thing done differently could mean us never winning the Cup, so at the end of the day, Army did exactly what needed to be done.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

This is an interesting point. Army has historically played up the value of 2nd rounders. I never hear much beyond that, which is fair because the hit rate is so bad. But, it also means you aren’t swinging for home runs and therefore rarely hit one 3rd round and beyond.

And it's not just 2nd rounders, but high 2nds. Elliott trade got high 2nd we used on Kyrou. Perron trade we got high 2nd we used on Barbashev. Problem with trading rental for 2nd at deadline is it is low 2nd which we don't seem to value. So our philosophy seems to be better to bet on lightning in playoffs than low odds picks, but if we get high odds pick we will deal players about to walk if we don't think we are good enough to go far.

And agreed I would like to see us pick up more picks than we do. Not necessarily by selling, but by trading down. Based on leaguewide hit rates, would generally like to see us trade 3rds and 4ths for more picks later in drafts to increase chances we hit on a lottery ticket.

 

[Celtic Note]

And it's not just 2nd rounders, but high 2nds. Elliott trade got high 2nd we used on Kyrou. Perron trade we got high 2nd we used on Barbashev. Problem with trading rental for 2nd at deadline is it is low 2nd which we don't seem to value. So our philosophy seems to be better to bet on lightning in playoffs than low odds picks, but if we get high odds pick we will deal players about to walk if we don't think we are good enough to go far.

And agreed I would like to see us pick up more picks than we do. Not necessarily by selling, but by trading down. Based on leaguewide hit rates, would generally like to see us trade 3rds and 4ths for more picks later in drafts to increase chances we hit on a lottery ticket.

I think our drafting philosophy could be part of it too. We seem to go after a lot of low ceiling players with our round three and later picks.

 

[Thallis]

Shattenkirk?

The Shattenkirk trade is kind of what he's talking about in terms of trading for cheap guys you can plug in on the 4th line.