Confirmed with Link: Bannister Out, Monty In

[ChicagoBlues]

This is such a relief.

 

[TheDizee]

So what was the point of giving Bannister a TWO year contract again?

I am thrilled he is gone, but even a blind man could have seen this coming. Army is a fool sometimes.

 

[Brockon]

I’m talking about his entire tenure with the Blues organization. To act like it’s just 20 games is a bit disingenuous as he was here the majority of last season as well and coached our AHL team for years before that. Didn’t really see any of our prospects thriving under him at the AHL level, unless I’m wrong who exactly has he had a hand in helping to develop over the years he’s been here?

Neighbours for 23gp in 2022-23, who looked pretty good in 2023-24 in his 77 NHL games with Bannister at the helm as interim coach for 54 games.

Perunovich for his time in Springfield
2021-22, 17 gp 3-19-22p (NHL 19 go 0-6-6p)
2022-23, 22 gp 2-18-20p
Perunovich has started to settle into a role on our current roster and I think a large portion of his struggles should be attributed to injuries and missed playing time as opposed to an indictment on the coach's ability.

Toropchenko
2019-20 59gp 5-4-9p Bannister San Antonio
2020-21 45gp 7-4-11p KHL Kovalev Kunlun
2021-22 42gp 10-10-20p (NHL 28gp 2-0-2p)
2022-23 5gp 1-2-3p (NHL 69gp 10-9-19p)
2023-24 NHL 82gp 14-7-21p
Solid bottom 6 forechecking machine, with Bannister coaching him in his 2 seasons he played in the AHL and then last year as the primary coach in the NHL. How much impact did Berube have in the 28 NHL games in 2021-22, NHL 69 games in 2022-23 and 24 NHL games in 2023-24 vs Bannister's 42 AHL games in 2021-22, 5 AHL games in 2022-23 and 54 NHL games in 2023-24 can be asked.


Walker
2013-19 Hershey Bears under various coaches
2019-20 San Antonio under Bannister
2021-22 Springfield under Bannister
Not developed under Bannister, but certainly the complaints about Walker have lessened for the 2023-25 NHL appearances after Bannister had time with him compared to his usage under Berube's coaching in 2021-23.

Kessel
2021-22 15gp 0-3-3p (after 37 NCAA games)
2022-23 71gp 5-28-33p (NHL 2gp 0p)
2023-24 36gp 3-5-8p (NHL 39gp 1-6-7p)
Bannister is the only pro coach Kessel has played significant games under. Berube would have been around for a handful of his pro games as coach - but Kessel was an NCAA/Bannister product.

Bolduc
QJMHL until 2023.
2023-24 50gp 8-17-25p (NHL 25gp 5-4-9p)
Mostly Bannister here, really difficult to judge how effective that time was/wasn't.

Hofer
WHL until 2019-20. AHL 1gp for San Antonio
2020-21 10gp for Utica - Trent Cull coach, Bannister Associate Coach
2021-22 39gp (NHL 2gp)
2022-23 47gp (NHL 6gp)
2023-24 NHL 30gp
Mostly Bannister as head coach for Hofer here. Fair question to ask how much influence is head coach working with goalie vs the goalie coach.

Kyrou
2018-19 47p 16-27-43p (NHL 16gp 1-2-3p)
2019-20 16gp 9-6-15p (NHL 28gp 4-5-9p)
NHL player since then. Only Bannister was only AHL coach he had.

Walman
2016-17 NCAA, 7 AHL games w/ Chicago wolves
2017-18 40gp Chicago coach R. Thompson
17gp Binghamton R. Kowalsky
2018-19 66gp San Antonio Bannister
2019-20 57gp San Antonio Bannister
NHL after this. Gone, not really diving into this. Many fingerprints in play.

Not really sure who else you can classify as a prospect that Bannister had the opportunity to work with - our prospects haven't played a significant amount of time in the AHL recently as we haven't really had many. Largely a product of our success and cup win.

Worth pointing out that Hofer, Neighbours, Toropchenko, Kyrou and Kessel all developed into steady pros under his AHL influence. Can easily argue that Walker, Perunovich and Bolduc have shown improvements under his guidance to lesser extents - these 3 are separate because they've had other contributing factors or shorter spans under Bannister than the first grouping.

Edit: fixed dates under the Toropchenko entry that were off by a year in the short blurb

 

[Mike Liut]

So what was the point of giving Bannister a TWO year contract again?

I am thrilled he is gone, but even a blind man could have seen this coming. Army is a fool sometimes.

He was just a placeholder until something better came along. I wish him the best, he seems like a good dude.

 

[TheDizee]

He was just a placeholder until something better came along. I wish him the best, he seems like a good dude.

So why not go year to year then?

 

[Mike Liut]

So why not go year to year then?

Would somebody sign a 1 yr deal?

 

[Reality Czech]

He was just a placeholder until something better came along. I wish him the best, he seems like a good dude.

The two-year deal is a bit of a head-scratcher but not a huge deal in the end. I doubt Bannister had enough leverage to demand a 2nd year but I guess it was a gesture of good faith from the organization. Very few NHL coaches become successful without being fired once or twice. I wish him the best as well.

One thing I was thinking about is the 5-year term, which is a lot longer than most NHL coach contracts. Was that Monty saying "if you want me, show me how badly or else I'll wait and see what other offers are out there" or Army's decision to make sure he got his guy. Would a 2-4 year deal not have got it done? I just find it interesting because I can't recall many coaches getting a 5-year deal in the past, although I know not all coach contracts are made public.

 

[BlueDream]

It’s not a head scratcher at all. A coach isn’t signing a one year deal and standing on the bench as a lame duck. They are going to get at least some security with the 2nd year.

The fact that it wasn’t 3 years is why it was obvious he was a stop-gap.

 

[sbet1998]

Like I said -- and got laughed at by a couple people here -- If Armstrong sees an opportunity to improve the team by firing the coach he wont hesitate.

 

[Majorityof1]

Like I said -- and got laughed at by a couple people here -- If Armstrong sees an opportunity to improve the team by firing the coach he wont hesitate.

I don't think I laughed at you. Apologies if it came off like that. But I definitely disagreed with you. I admitted above, I was wrong there.

You did say Julien would take over, which I still highly doubt. Armstrong specifically said, they only made the move because Montgomery came available. But I was wrong about them firing Bannister so early, so kudos on the call.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

He was just a placeholder until something better came along. I wish him the best, he seems like a good dude.

I interpreted Bannister's retention as extending an interim coach for up to two years, not naming a permanent one. As @BlueDream said, the fact it was only two years was the tell he was just keeping the seat warm. If in that two years we somehow would have made a run or significantly outperformed, then he gets an extension.

Teams do that with players all the time. It is the "prove it" deal. We just don't normally see it with coaches, but given the state of our roster it was probably the right call.

I expected him to be around for most of the two years, if not all. But then again, I did not expect Monty to be available this quickly, either. And let's face it, this was not exactly a plum job last offseason.

I suspect Bannister will turn up again pretty quickly in the AHL or as an assistant in the NHL. It's not like the job he did was a disaster, considering the talent he had to work with.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

So what was the point of giving Bannister a TWO year contract again?

I am thrilled he is gone, but even a blind man could have seen this coming. Army is a fool sometimes.

Maybe because Monty also had another year left on his contract. Not sure if this is accurate.

 

[Cotton McKnight]

What happens when the Blues are sitting 6th in the Central this time next year, with Montgomery as coach? I don't think a 40-year old Scotty Bownman would lead this roster to the playoffs.

Steen just inherited his first head coach...not that he likely wasn't a part of the discussions around the hire. It's just a weird situation with the GM on the way out, the roster in need of dire talent infusion and we're watching them shuffle the chairs on the deck of the titanic. I get they wanted to hire Montgomery...but is the club really at the point where they need a top-notch coach? They're probably 2-3 years from contending for anything; doesn't seem like head coach was the biggest priority to shore up.

But they got their man, I guess. Hopefully they'll give him a longer leash than they gave Berube and Bannister when the season started to slip away.

I like Monty, and yet I don't think this roster is going to get very far, let alone getting out of the 1st round of the POs, once they make it in. Our D is atrocious, and the depth at F is abysmal. Yeah we are high up on the kids (in my opinion), and yet those kids could still fall far short.

I figured Monty was going to sign with a contender, money/term must be nice for him (and close to his wife's home).

 

[TheDizee]

just listened to the press conf. lol our local media is so pathetic. no real questions with regards to how people like kyrou refuse to take the next step and how his failure to perform has led to a third coach in 1 year.

 

[SirPaste]

The two-year deal is a bit of a head-scratcher but not a huge deal in the end. I doubt Bannister had enough leverage to demand a 2nd year but I guess it was a gesture of good faith from the organization. Very few NHL coaches become successful without being fired once or twice. I wish him the best as well.

One thing I was thinking about is the 5-year term, which is a lot longer than most NHL coach contracts. Was that Monty saying "if you want me, show me how badly or else I'll wait and see what other offers are out there" or Army's decision to make sure he got his guy. Would a 2-4 year deal not have got it done? I just find it interesting because I can't recall many coaches getting a 5-year deal in the past, although I know not all coach contracts are made public.

I think the 5 years has more to do with Army knowing the Blues aren’t a good team right now so he is trying to let Monty know he is going to have some runway and not really expected to succeed right away, it’s going to be a project. But the guy they wanted was available now and probably wouldn’t be available when they are ready to take that next step in a year or two so might as well just get him under contract now for a longer term deal