Blues 2024 Off-Season Trade Proposals Thread

[Snubbed4Vezina]

I'm curious why you don't think Faksa can be the type of player we've brought him in to be. He's only 30. From what I've gathered from Stars fans, their desire to move on from him stemmed purely from a contract that's higher than his true value as a defensive forward.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I'm curious why you don't think Faksa can be the type of player we've brought him in to be. He's only 30. From what I've gathered from Stars fans, their desire to move on from him stemmed purely from a contract that's higher than his true value as a defensive forward.

Watching him play. He’s not as good as he was 2-3 years ago.

And I’d suggest going and reading the Faksa thread on the trade/free agent frenzy board. Didn’t seem too rosy from Stars fans to me.

 

[Celtic Note]

On Reddit today, I saw an interesting stat - that from 90-99 only 1 first overall pick won a SC - Levacalier with Tampa. Every other 1st didn't win. From 2001-2009, 6 players won, EJ being the only one who didn't win with his drafted team. From 2010-2019, only 2 players have won (so far) MacKinnon and Ekblad. For 2020-2024, 0 first overalls have won a cup.

So if we go back 35 years and look at every 1st overall pick, only 9 of them have ended up winning a Cup, and one of them wasn't even with the team that drafted him. Now there's still a lot of runway left for some of these guys, but it does go to show you that bottoming out and even drafting 1st overall isn't a surefire way to win a Cup.

Really interesting stat. Thank for sharing.

Question: Does the 9 number count guys that won multiple times as only a 1 player? Off the top of my head, Kane and Crosby have multiple Cups, but if they only count as one, the stat is a touch misleading, right? Just for those two players, the stat would be missing 4 Cups if they are only counting it as 1 because it’s focused on players, not Cups that 1st round selections have.

I would also contend that bottoming out doesn’t necessarily mean a #1 pick. And, that equating these stats to the likelihood of success is a bit odd of a position. If we focused exclusively on any one number in a draft, how does that look in comparison to #1? Does that tell us much? A much stronger analysis would be looking at a range that makes sense for teams that bottom out for some period of time. In looking back at some data, it looks like there is a drop off in games played on average from pick number 7 to 8 that seems pretty significant. So a range of 1-7 would be an area a bottoming out team might need seek to hit to land a top end player.

The thing with bottoming out, what level of bad are we wanting to reach and how are we getting there? There's a difference between going for Chicago/San Jose/Anaheim/Columbus level bad or are we talking the more Calgary/Ottawa/Seattle/Jersey/etc. level bad? To get a guaranteed top 5 pick, we have to do a lot of gutting. To get a likely top 10 team that has a better chance at moving up in the lotto, that's a bit easier to do and still an achievable quick turnaround.

I think we missed the boat on bottoming out for any period of time when we signed Buch. He is going to help us win too many games barring a Yeo like collapse to take us significantly below projections. But I guess there are other ways to remove other productive members of the team and drop from mediocre to worse than 10th.

Dallas is an example of a team that people see as a quick turn around. They got Miro at #3 and they didn’t stay in the abyss. So “all” we have to do is win the lottery once to follow their model and draft 2 other franchise players in the same draft. Or in our case just one since we have Thomas already.

The Blues are another example of bypassing a long term rebuild by bottoming out only two years and being mediocre for a few more. We didn’t have to win the lottery though to make it work.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Really interesting stat. Thank for sharing.

Question: Does the 9 number count guys that won multiple times as only a 1 player?

Yes, Crosby and Kane are counted just once. About half the misses have to be the 20 forwards Edmonton drafted 1st overall.*

*yes I know this is an exaggeration.

It is an interesting stat though. Bottoming out isn’t a guarantee of winning the Cup but it appears it’s near impossible to win the Cup without bottoming out.

 

[Celtic Note]

Yes, Crosby and Kane are counted just once. About half the misses have to be the 20 forwards Edmonton drafted 1st overall.*

*yes I know this is an exaggeration.

It is an interesting stat though. Bottoming out isn’t a guarantee of winning the Cup but it appears it’s near impossible to win the Cup without bottoming out.

I would love to see the analysis of Cup winners since the cap was instituted that have won without a top 5 pick being on their roster or used to acquire a key player. It should give us a good insight into the likelihood that the route we are taking will lead to a Cup.

There is plenty of push back on bottoming out, but not much (if any?) evidence provided by those opposed to that approach and in support of the route we are taking illustrating that what we are doing has much of a chance of yielding a Cup. Or maybe I am misunderstanding. Maybe people aren’t terribly interested in winning the Cup? Maybe playoff appearances are enough for some?

 

[Dr Robot]

I think I mentioned a few days before Free Agency that I would have liked to get Mcleod off Edmonton. I thought he was a good third liner who's trade value was roughly a third round draft pick. Apparently I was way off.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think I mentioned a few days before Free Agency that I would have liked to get Mcleod off Edmonton. I thought he was a good third liner who's trade value was roughly a third round draft pick. Apparently I was way off.

His value was always higher than that, but Buffalo still paid a rich price.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

His value was always higher than that, but Buffalo still paid a rich price.

i like it for sabres. they have an abundance of small skilled forward prospects, so dealing one to get mcleod was smart move.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I think I mentioned a few days before Free Agency that I would have liked to get Mcleod off Edmonton. I thought he was a good third liner who's trade value was roughly a third round draft pick. Apparently I was way off.

Wow. They got Matt Savoie. On the surface, this looks like a potential Erat for Forsberg fleecing but…

I’ve long thought Savoie was overrated. And now I’m thinking Buffalo management thought the same! He’s highly talented and could end up being good BUT he’s 5’10”, likely to be a winger in the NHL, has struggled a bit internationally when the competition increases and there’s also some injury concerns.

McLeod on the other hand is a bit underrated IMO. Very solid 3rd liner. This has the potential to look horrible for Buffalo in a few years but it’s not as bad of a deal as I thought upon first glance.

Or maybe Savoie peed in the GMs Cheerios at their prospect camp? Idk.

 

[bleedblue1223]

i like it for sabres. they have an abundance of small skilled forward prospects, so dealing one to get mcleod was smart move.

Yeah, I think it helps make them a more solid team.

 

[oPlaiD]

I would love to see the analysis of Cup winners since the cap was instituted that have won without a top 5 pick being on their roster or used to acquire a key player. It should give us a good insight into the likelihood that the route we are taking will lead to a Cup.

There is plenty of push back on bottoming out, but not much (if any?) evidence provided by those opposed to that approach and in support of the route we are taking illustrating that what we are doing has much of a chance of yielding a Cup. Or maybe I am misunderstanding. Maybe people aren’t terribly interested in winning the Cup? Maybe playoff appearances are enough for some?

This post by me in 2022 outlines it all:

Around the NHL 2022-2023 *Mod warning in effect pg145

I don't want fighting to ever leave the game completely, but I'm pretty satisfied with the direction the league has gone with it. I don't want staged fights and I don't want guys who are only in the lineup to fight. But I absolutely believe that fights between two guys who can actually play at...

forums.hfboards.com

Since the salary cap was implemented, the Ducks in 2007, Red Wings in 2008, and VGK are the only teams to win without rostering a key player the team drafted in the top 5. But the Ducks had Selanne as a #10 pick and Pronger and Niedermeyer, two top 5 picks from other teams. The Wings managed to roster three Hall of Famers in Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk who were all drafted in later rounds. And VGK's top defenseman and top forward were top 5 picks from other teams. The 2011 Bruins also could count since they picked Seguin at #2 the year before the win and he was not a key contributor (nor a player they tanked to acquire since his draft pick was obtained via trade), but like the Wings they had multiple Hall of Fame players drafted from later rounds in Chara and Bergeron.

So the conclusion is drafting a key talent in the top 5 is all but a requirement for creating a Cup winning team in the salary cap era. Drafting in that position is not a guarantee you will be able to win, even if you hit on the pick, but with the current NHL landscape it's simply the only realistic way to get the talent needed to really win. The only exceptions are teams that managed to acquire that level of players via trade and/or free agency (but most GMs aren't stupid enough to let the franchise players they draft in the top 5 leave through free agency...) or through absolutely lucking into it with a later pick, but I think in the modern era even that has become increasingly unlikely due to better scouting worldwide. I'm not sure how true this is, but I know the Red Wings were often lauded for scouting Europe earlier and better than other NHL teams and that was in part supposedly how they managed to get guys like Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk. I think getting an advantage that way in the modern NHL is even harder than it was then.

It seems that Armstrong and Steen don't want to go that route, though, so I'll sit here hoping Lindstein is the next Lidstrom and Dvorsky is the next Zetterberg. Or something like that. I think, especially after we already got our first Cup under our belts, my stomach for bottoming out for one or two years is probably higher than it might have used to be to where I wish that was where Armstrong decided to take the team post-Petro, but I'm not going to root against the Blues even if they aren't being run how I would do it.

 

[BlueDream]

I think it’s an overpayment from Buffalo. I’m not sure I’d call McLeod underrated. He’s fine as a 3C but keep in mind, Edmonton went out and acquired centers in back to back years now at the deadline because they weren’t getting enough from him. He hasn’t proved them wrong either, because he hasn’t produced much in the playoffs.

Savoie has concerns but imagine if the Blues traded a top 5 prospect in their system for Ryan McLeod. I would not have been happy with that.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

This post by me in 2022 outlines it all:

Around the NHL 2022-2023 *Mod warning in effect pg145

I don't want fighting to ever leave the game completely, but I'm pretty satisfied with the direction the league has gone with it. I don't want staged fights and I don't want guys who are only in the lineup to fight. But I absolutely believe that fights between two guys who can actually play at...

forums.hfboards.com

Since the salary cap was implemented, the Ducks in 2007, Red Wings in 2008, and VGK are the only teams to win without rostering a key player the team drafted in the top 5. But the Ducks had Selanne as a #10 pick and Pronger and Niedermeyer, two top 5 picks from other teams. The Wings managed to roster three Hall of Famers in Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk who were all drafted in later rounds. And VGK's top defenseman and top forward were top 5 picks from other teams. The 2011 Bruins also could count since they picked Seguin at #2 the year before the win and he was not a key contributor (nor a player they tanked to acquire since his draft pick was obtained via trade), but like the Wings they had multiple Hall of Fame players drafted from later rounds in Chara and Bergeron.

So the conclusion is drafting a key talent in the top 5 is all but a requirement for creating a Cup winning team in the salary cap era. Drafting in that position is not a guarantee you will be able to win, even if you hit on the pick, but with the current NHL landscape it's simply the only realistic way to get the talent needed to really win. The only exceptions are teams that managed to acquire that level of players via trade and/or free agency (but most GMs aren't stupid enough to let the franchise players they draft in the top 5 leave through free agency...) or through absolutely lucking into it with a later pick, but I think in the modern era even that has become increasingly unlikely due to better scouting worldwide. I'm not sure how true this is, but I know the Red Wings were often lauded for scouting Europe earlier and better than other NHL teams and that was in part supposedly how they managed to get guys like Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk. I think getting an advantage that way in the modern NHL is even harder than it was then.

It seems that Armstrong and Steen don't want to go that route, though, so I'll sit here hoping Lindstein is the next Lidstrom and Dvorsky is the next Zetterberg. Or something like that. I think, especially after we already got our first Cup under our belts, my stomach for bottoming out for one or two years is probably higher than it might have used to be to where I wish that was where Armstrong decided to take the team post-Petro, but I'm not going to root against the Blues even if they aren't being run how I would do it.

Don't want to pick on you, but I think this kind of analysis doesn't separate correlation from causation. Teams that win the Cup basically always have great players or they don't win. Great players are easier to draft at top of draft than later; that's why they are picked first. So we rush to conclusion, "If you look at my actuarial tables, you can see that you need to pick at top of draft to win Cup". Except it's not true, because not only can you draft great players later you can also acquire them via trade or FA. This is at least as true now as it has ever been.

Who were top players on Panthers? Barkov was top 5 pick, but MT was trade, Bob was FA, Reinhart was trade, Forslund was waiver pickup, Verhage was FA, Montour trade. Those were top 4 f and 2 d by ice time in playoffs.

Avs did get their top 2 guys at top of draft, but rantaneen was 10oa as was nuke, toews and lehkonen were trades.

tampa got hedman and stamkos at top of draft, but kuch and point were later picks (and vasi a mid 1st).

We had petro who we picked in top 5, but he was only one. all others were acquired with later picks, trades, or FA.

Bruins team we beat in finals had bergeron and krejci who were 2nd rounders, pasta and mcavoy mid-late 1sts, marchand a late pick, and chara a fa.

Now, you might say, we still don't have enough great players. We need more top players if we want to win another Cup. This is absolutely true. And if we can get a top pick, that would increase chances of picking great player over a later pick. But that doesn't mean we should dump our good players so we can be bad enough to have better chance of picking better one. It's not that simple. Because even if we jettison enough talent to get top pick, that guy could be EJ or Laf or Slaf instead of Sid, Connor, or Connor. And even if we get top guy, they still need other top players to win Cup. McDavid is best player in league (and Draisaitl is top 10 too) and he's been past 2nd round twice in 9 years and is still Cupless, as is every 1oa drafted since. Because it's really hard and there is no sure path.

 

[BleedBlue14]

I think I mentioned a few days before Free Agency that I would have liked to get Mcleod off Edmonton. I thought he was a good third liner who's trade value was roughly a third round draft pick. Apparently I was way off.

Could be Savoie isn’t as highly regarded as his draft position shows too, or likely a mix of both.

Interesting trade though for sure, I also like the way McLeod plays.

 

[oPlaiD]

Don't want to pick on you, but I think this kind of analysis doesn't separate correlation from causation. Teams that win the Cup basically always have great players or they don't win. Great players are easier to draft at top of draft than later; that's why they are picked first. So we rush to conclusion, "If you look at my actuarial tables, you can see that you need to pick at top of draft to win Cup". Except it's not true, because not only can you draft great players later you can also acquire them via trade or FA. This is at least as true now as it has ever been.

Who were top players on Panthers? Barkov was top 5 pick, but MT was trade, Bob was FA, Reinhart was trade, Forslund was waiver pickup, Verhage was FA, Montour trade. Those were top 4 f and 2 d by ice time in playoffs.

Avs did get their top 2 guys at top of draft, but rantaneen was 10oa as was nuke, toews and lehkonen were trades.

tampa got hedman and stamkos at top of draft, but kuch and point were later picks (and vasi a mid 1st).

We had petro who we picked in top 5, but he was only one. all others were acquired with later picks, trades, or FA.

Bruins team we beat in finals had bergeron and krejci who were 2nd rounders, pasta and mcavoy mid-late 1sts, marchand a late pick, and chara a fa.

Now, you might say, we still don't have enough great players. We need more top players if we want to win another Cup. This is absolutely true. And if we can get a top pick, that would increase chances of picking great player over a later pick. But that doesn't mean we should dump our good players so we can be bad enough to have better chance of picking better one. It's not that simple. Because even if we jettison enough talent to get top pick, that guy could be EJ or Laf or Slaf instead of Sid, Connor, or Connor. And even if we get top guy, they still need other top players to win Cup. McDavid is best player in league (and Draisaitl is top 10 too) and he's been past 2nd round twice in 9 years and is still Cupless, as is every 1oa drafted since. Because it's really hard and there is no sure path.

Every team that's ever won has acquired great players through trade, free agency, and late picks.

All the teams who have won in the cap era have also acquired at least one of those players with their own top 5 pick, except Boston and Vegas.

Your examples show that you sure, you need to acquire players in multiple ways, but all those teams acquired star players with late picks, trades, and free agency, but ALSO had a top 5 pick on their team. The Panthers don't win without Barkov. Tampa doesn't win without one of Stamkos or Hedman, much less two. We don't win without Petro.

Sure, you CAN win without top draft picks. No one is denying that. But if the Cup is your primary goal, any strategy without top picks is a poor strategy compared to one with them. To win in any given year you have to be the best team out of 32. Then Armstrong is also hoping he can be one of the 2 out of 20 that win without one of those picks. It's just not a great bet.

It's also true that most teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning the Cup, even if they hit big with the pick. But if you want a player to build your franchise around, it's by far the best way to get one. Choosing not to do so when your franchise is well positioned to do it is a dubious decision at best, given your primary goal is actually winning the Cup.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Every team that's ever won has acquired great players through trade, free agency, and late picks.

All the teams who have won in the cap era have also acquired at least one of those players with their own top 5 pick, except Boston and Vegas.

Your examples show that you sure, you need to acquire players in multiple ways, but all those teams acquired star players with late picks, trades, and free agency, but ALSO had a top 5 pick on their team. The Panthers don't win without Barkov. Tampa doesn't win without one of Stamkos or Hedman, much less two. We don't win without Petro.

Sure, you CAN win without top draft picks. No one is denying that. But if the Cup is your primary goal, any strategy without top picks is a poor strategy compared to one with them. To win in any given year you have to be the best team out of 32. Then Armstrong is also hoping he can be one of the 2 out of 20 that win without one of those picks. It's just not a great bet.

It's also true that most teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning the Cup, even if they hit big with the pick. But if you want a player to build your franchise around, it's by far the best way to get one. Choosing not to do so when your franchise is well positioned to do it is a dubious decision at best, given your primary goal is actually winning the Cup.

How do you suggest we position ourselves for top pick? Should we trade away our top players (Thomas, Parayko, Binny, etc..) so that we can lose more? Then we need not just 1 stud but additional ones to replace top guys we dumped. Or do you want us just to try to lose? Like tell guys to not win? Because that doesn't seem like great way to build champ either. Most teams picking at top of draft aren't doing it by choice; given choice teams should want to be better.

 

[Celtic Note]

Don't want to pick on you, but I think this kind of analysis doesn't separate correlation from causation. Teams that win the Cup basically always have great players or they don't win. Great players are easier to draft at top of draft than later; that's why they are picked first. So we rush to conclusion, "If you look at my actuarial tables, you can see that you need to pick at top of draft to win Cup". Except it's not true, because not only can you draft great players later you can also acquire them via trade or FA. This is at least as true now as it has ever been.

Who were top players on Panthers? Barkov was top 5 pick, but MT was trade, Bob was FA, Reinhart was trade, Forslund was waiver pickup, Verhage was FA, Montour trade. Those were top 4 f and 2 d by ice time in playoffs.

Avs did get their top 2 guys at top of draft, but rantaneen was 10oa as was nuke, toews and lehkonen were trades.

tampa got hedman and stamkos at top of draft, but kuch and point were later picks (and vasi a mid 1st).

We had petro who we picked in top 5, but he was only one. all others were acquired with later picks, trades, or FA.

Bruins team we beat in finals had bergeron and krejci who were 2nd rounders, pasta and mcavoy mid-late 1sts, marchand a late pick, and chara a fa.

Now, you might say, we still don't have enough great players. We need more top players if we want to win another Cup. This is absolutely true. And if we can get a top pick, that would increase chances of picking great player over a later pick. But that doesn't mean we should dump our good players so we can be bad enough to have better chance of picking better one. It's not that simple. Because even if we jettison enough talent to get top pick, that guy could be EJ or Laf or Slaf instead of Sid, Connor, or Connor. And even if we get top guy, they still need other top players to win Cup. McDavid is best player in league (and Draisaitl is top 10 too) and he's been past 2nd round twice in 9 years and is still Cupless, as is every 1oa drafted since. Because it's really hard and there is no sure path.

So if we subtract Barkov, MacKinnion, Makar, Hedman, Stamkos or any other top player selected high in a draft, do those teams win a Cup? Because that is 100% how those names were acquired. I would say unequivocally no.

Could they have found these players some other way? Who knows. We know they didn’t. If for some chance they did, it would have cost them something. Does that cost negate them something else they needed to win? We could go down a theoretical rabbit hole on the what ifs.

What we know is where they were drafted and that they were critical members of their team.

All of these teams have found very good players outside of their top 5 picks. That seems like a requirement for any Cup winner. They needed every single top end player they compiled onto their collective teams to get it done. And, in the case of all the players I mentioned in the first sentence, those top picks were some of the Cup winners very best players.

We also know there are far fewer teams that have won without a top 5 pick than those who have.

Is it possible to devise a strategy that does not require a top five pick to win a Cup? The evidence says yes. I don’t deny that at all and no one should. There are a couple teams who have. That’s all we need to know.

Is that strategy as successful as ones who have used top 5ish picks as part of the way they built their teams? No. History has taught us that.

Are there teams that have failed in that mission while using an approach with top 5s involved? Plenty.

If you flip the question to an approach without top 5s you get the same answer.

What seems to be missing from these arguments pushing back on higher picks is the increasing difficulty and reduced statistical probability of winning an already challenging pinnacle achievement in the Cup.

To to me the difference in our positions is probably related to, expectations, willingness to sacrifice and risk tolerance. When it comes to the Blues, for me, there are all high. My expectation is we will always try to give ourselves the best opportunity to win the Cup, even if it may hurt. I am willing to sacrifice years of bad play in the quest for the Cup. And I know that in life your best chance to achieve your highest reward often comes with taking the highest calculated risk you are willing to handle. So, as a fan of the Blues, I am willing to risk being bad for years to give us a better chance at winning the cup again.

 

[Dr Robot]

How many teams HAVEN'T bottomed out and had a top 5 pick in the cap era? It seems like that requisite would be accomplished by almost everyone.

 

[Celtic Note]

Every team that's ever won has acquired great players through trade, free agency, and late picks.

All the teams who have won in the cap era have also acquired at least one of those players with their own top 5 pick, except Boston and Vegas.

Your examples show that you sure, you need to acquire players in multiple ways, but all those teams acquired star players with late picks, trades, and free agency, but ALSO had a top 5 pick on their team. The Panthers don't win without Barkov. Tampa doesn't win without one of Stamkos or Hedman, much less two. We don't win without Petro.

Sure, you CAN win without top draft picks. No one is denying that. But if the Cup is your primary goal, any strategy without top picks is a poor strategy compared to one with them. To win in any given year you have to be the best team out of 32. Then Armstrong is also hoping he can be one of the 2 out of 20 that win without one of those picks. It's just not a great bet.

It's also true that most teams who pick in the top 5 don't end up winning the Cup, even if they hit big with the pick. But if you want a player to build your franchise around, it's by far the best way to get one. Choosing not to do so when your franchise is well positioned to do it is a dubious decision at best, given your primary goal is actually winning the Cup.

I think you put this better than my post.

 

[Celtic Note]

How do you suggest we position ourselves for top pick? Should we trade away our top players (Thomas, Parayko, Binny, etc..) so that we can lose more? Then we need not just 1 stud but additional ones to replace top guys we dumped. Or do you want us just to try to lose? Like tell guys to not win? Because that doesn't seem like great way to build champ either. Most teams picking at top of draft aren't doing it by choice; given choice teams should want to be better.

The unfortunate realization to be made is we are not in an ideal place if the goal is the Cup.

We had too many aging core players to successfully retool. We didn’t have a Bergeron taking pulls from the fountain of youth. We only have Binnington from our top 3 core players from the Cup remaining.

In my estimation, our best bet was to tear down the year Petro walked or the one after. But that’s way behind us now. And Army was clearly never going to do that. He still isn’t. The only other options were to find his replacement in advance of his departure by taking risks trying to draft him (something I advocated for before it happened) or somehow drafting/acquiring immediately after. Despite that continuing to be our most glaring deficiency, it still doesn’t seemed to have happened, but I digress.

Our next best hope is (was?) trying to land an elite player with a top pick by being in the top 10 from 2023-2025 and hoping we pull a Dallas ( winning the lottery and landing a stud like Miro). I don’t particularly like those chances, but I like them better than hoping we find that guy later in the draft or via trade. Plus the more years we had those chances the more probability we land that guy.

Part of why I put “was?” above is because I had some degree of confidence in us getting into the top ten of picks if we moved on from Buch. I was hoping that was at the trade deadline this past year and then again at the draft. Now that he is locked in, we are less likely to drop in the standings than without him. Plus that commitment to Buch make me less inclined to believe we will do things to hurt our chances in the standings. The trade of Hayes for what could have been a high round second pick seems to reinforce the need for the now at the expense of the future enough that I am not sure how much it’s worth the effort of trying to figure out how best to try and lend us better draft positions.

How many teams HAVEN'T bottomed out and had a top 5 pick in the cap era? It seems like that requisite would be accomplished by almost everyone.

You have to draft well with those picks and then continue to build wisely. You can’t just piss away the opportunity and fail to build intelligently.

This isn’t a walk up to the draft podium and ask where is my Cup situation.

Having high draft picks is part of a strategy, not the entire thing. Unless you are the previous round of idiots running Edmonton. That might have been their entire strategy.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

The unfortunate realization to be made is we are not in an ideal place if the goal is the Cup.

We had too many aging core players to successfully retool. We didn’t have a Bergeron taking pulls from the fountain of youth. We only have Binnington from our top 3 core players from the Cup remaining.

In my estimation, our best bet was to tear down the year Petro walked or the one after. But that’s way behind us now. And Army was clearly never going to do that. He still isn’t. The only other options were to find his replacement in advance of his departure by taking risks trying to draft him (something I advocated for before it happened) or somehow drafting/acquiring immediately after. Despite that continuing to be our most glaring deficiency, it still doesn’t seemed to have happened, but I digress.

Our next best hope is (was?) trying to land an elite player with a top pick by being in the top 10 from 2023-2025 and hoping we pull a Dallas ( winning the lottery and landing a stud like Miro). I don’t particularly like those chances, but I like them better than hoping we find that guy later in the draft or via trade. Plus the more years we had those chances the more probability we land that guy.

Part of why I put “was?” above is because I had some degree of confidence in us getting into the top ten of picks if we moved on from Buch. I was hoping that was at the trade deadline this past year and then again at the draft. Now that he is locked in, we are less likely to drop in the standings than without him. Plus that commitment to Buch make me less inclined to believe we will do things to hurt our chances in the standings. The trade of Hayes for what could have been a high round second pick seems to reinforce the need for the now at the expense of the future enough that I am not sure how much it’s worth the effort of trying to figure out how best to try and lend us better draft positions.


You have to draft well with those picks and then continue to build wisely. You can’t just piss away the opportunity and fail to build intelligently.

This isn’t a walk up to the draft podium and ask where is my Cup situation.

Having high draft picks is part of a strategy, not the entire thing. Unless you are the previous round of idiots running Edmonton. That might have been their entire strategy.

We need to focus less on inputs and more on outputs. We don’t need high picks; we need more great players. Thomas, buchy, kyrou, parayko, and binny are a start. Thomas would be a top 10, maybe 5, pick in a redraft. It’s not like Patrick or glass are better bc they were picked earlier. Our other stars would go much higher too.

If our recent 1sts hit then we could be much of way to contention in next few years. And their draft position won’t determine whether they do. Defensemen in particular need to hit, but lindstein and jiricek both have top 10 talent but slipped a bit due to draft year injuries.

Whether any of our players, kids or others, become elite remains to be seen. I don’t know that either Thomas or kyrou have peaked either. In another year or 2 as our kids develop more we should have better sense of what holes remain. My expectation is that we should be in position to deal surplus kids and picks to get another star to supplement what we have. That seems like much better idea than burning it all down.

 

[Xerloris]

The unfortunate realization to be made is we are not in an ideal place if the goal is the Cup.

We had too many aging core players to successfully retool. We didn’t have a Bergeron taking pulls from the fountain of youth. We only have Binnington from our top 3 core players from the Cup remaining.

In my estimation, our best bet was to tear down the year Petro walked or the one after. But that’s way behind us now. And Army was clearly never going to do that. He still isn’t. The only other options were to find his replacement in advance of his departure by taking risks trying to draft him (something I advocated for before it happened) or somehow drafting/acquiring immediately after. Despite that continuing to be our most glaring deficiency, it still doesn’t seemed to have happened, but I digress.

Our next best hope is (was?) trying to land an elite player with a top pick by being in the top 10 from 2023-2025 and hoping we pull a Dallas ( winning the lottery and landing a stud like Miro). I don’t particularly like those chances, but I like them better than hoping we find that guy later in the draft or via trade. Plus the more years we had those chances the more probability we land that guy.

Part of why I put “was?” above is because I had some degree of confidence in us getting into the top ten of picks if we moved on from Buch. I was hoping that was at the trade deadline this past year and then again at the draft. Now that he is locked in, we are less likely to drop in the standings than without him. Plus that commitment to Buch make me less inclined to believe we will do things to hurt our chances in the standings. The trade of Hayes for what could have been a high round second pick seems to reinforce the need for the now at the expense of the future enough that I am not sure how much it’s worth the effort of trying to figure out how best to try and lend us better draft positions.


You have to draft well with those picks and then continue to build wisely. You can’t just piss away the opportunity and fail to build intelligently.

This isn’t a walk up to the draft podium and ask where is my Cup situation.

Having high draft picks is part of a strategy, not the entire thing. Unless you are the previous round of idiots running Edmonton. That might have been their entire strategy.

It doesn't matter how you get the star player, either through trade, FA or draft just so long as you have them. I mean you list Vegas as a team that won without one of their own but they had Eichel and Piertrangelo and more than likely someone else from at least the top 10.

 

[Reality Czech]

How do you suggest we position ourselves for top pick? Should we trade away our top players (Thomas, Parayko, Binny, etc..) so that we can lose more? Then we need not just 1 stud but additional ones to replace top guys we dumped. Or do you want us just to try to lose? Like tell guys to not win? Because that doesn't seem like great way to build champ either. Most teams picking at top of draft aren't doing it by choice; given choice teams should want to be better.

Thanks for pointing this out. I doubt there has ever been a team in the Blues position in 2020-21 that just decided to tear it all down and go scorched earth. We were still an above average team with plenty of solid players that would have made going the full rebuild route nearly impossible. Not to mention the fact that the flat cap meant it was extremely difficult to trade any significant contract. I see bottoming out at more a last resort for teams that have no other choice, not a specific strategy that teams employ in the hopes of being a contender 5-10 years later. Once you create a culture of losing, who knows how long it will take to overcome that.

 

[Xerloris]

Thanks for pointing this out. I doubt there has ever been a team in the Blues position in 2020-21 that just decided to tear it all down and go scorched earth. We were still an above average team with plenty of solid players that would have made going the full rebuild route nearly impossible. Not to mention the fact that the flat cap meant it was extremely difficult to trade any significant contract. I see bottoming out at more a last resort for teams that have no other choice, not a specific strategy that teams employ in the hopes of being a contender 5-10 years later. Once you create a culture of losing, who knows how long it will take to overcome that.

If I was one of the best say, 500 professionals in the world at my profession, would I go to a company that has filed bankruptcy 5 times in the last 15 years or would I prefer one with a winning track record of not firing all of their employees and trying to start over constantly?

 

[Celtic Note]

It doesn't matter how you get the star player, either through trade, FA or draft just so long as you have them. I mean you list Vegas as a team that won without one of their own but they had Eichel and Piertrangelo and more than likely someone else from at least the top 10.

Its pretty difficult for me to see us following a path like Vegas.

We aren’t willing or able to do the things they are. We haven’t shown we are willing to structure contracts the way premier UFAs and even those less than them expect. So we need to calibrate our expectations for top UFAs.

We also haven’t shown we are willing to weaponize LITR. I realize this wasn’t in your reply but I would rather get ahead of it.
Vegas won by doing this. Army isn’t a fan of the LITR loophole if second hand accounts are accurate.

We are not and will not be Vegas without significant change in our organization. We don’t operate like them on so many levels. Using them as an example to me is inherently flawed as such.