Blues Discussion Thread 2018-2019

[stl76]

Hypothetical:

If the Blues sign Kovalchuk, who is the ideal center between Kovy and Vladdy?

Barkov.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Barkov.

He's pretty much the ideal center between any 2 wingers.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Looks like we’re interested in Drew Bannister to coach in San Antonio, which would be a terrific hire. He only lost 7 games with the Soo Greyhounds last year, and was co-assistant coach with our current skills coach Daniel Tkaczuk in Owen Sound prior to taking the Soo job from Sheldon Keefe in 15-16. Good, young (44 yo) coach with high potential. He’s done a good job developing players, and he’d be asked to do much of the same in San Antonio.

If not Bannister, I’d like to see Jason Smith from Kelowna, John Gruden from Hamilton, or Trevor Letowski from Windsor take over HC duties.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

Looks like recruiting eventual Yeo replacements. Not upset about it.

 

[Dbrownss]

Speaking of coaches....JR insinuated on ESPN radio that the coaching staff will be back it seems. I figured Tkaczuk would be gone...given it looked like the players looked worse then before. Still can't handle the puck for shit

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Reading between the lines with Van Ryn and Bannister, we’re sticking to the plan this offseason. We aren’t panicking and jumping ship, but rather re-committing ourselves to getting younger and bringing in new ideas/new styles of play. Extrapolating a little from that, I would be shocked if we unloaded a bunch of our prospects for immediate help, the two messages just wouldn’t jibe. I for one am very in favor of that approach. We should absolutely try to improve, but not at the expense of the future.

 

[Majorityof1]

Reading between the lines with Van Ryn and Bannister, we’re sticking to the plan this offseason. We aren’t panicking and jumping ship, but rather re-committing ourselves to getting younger and bringing in new ideas/new styles of play. Extrapolating a little from that, I would be shocked if we unloaded a bunch of our prospects for immediate help, the two messages just wouldn’t jibe. I for one am very in favor of that approach. We should absolutely try to improve, but not at the expense of the future.

I think you are so far between the lines that you are making stuff up. You are seeing what you want to see. If Sydor wanted to step down, we needed a coach and had ties to Van Ryn. We needed a AHL coach and we will have good young prospects no matter how many we trade. I really do not see the connection between those hires and active roster moves, like at all. Spell it out for me as if I were a child because I think you are making unsupported leaps to where you hope we will go. All evidence points to getting the 29th pick to make a move for Top 6 help now. Armstrong as much as said that was the point. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean he is changing course. And a couple necessary coaching changes doesn't signal a change in the plan either.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I think you are so far between the lines that you are making stuff up. You are seeing what you want to see. If Sydor wanted to step down, we needed a coach and had ties to Van Ryn. We needed a AHL coach and we will have good young prospects no matter how many we trade. I really do not see the connection between those hires and active roster moves, like at all. Spell it out for me as if I were a child because I think you are making unsupported leaps to where you hope we will go. All evidence points to getting the 29th pick to make a move for Top 6 help now. Armstrong as much as said that was the point. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean he is changing course. And a couple necessary coaching changes doesn't signal a change in the plan either.

Well, there’s plenty of older coaches out there. Plenty of guys with more experience, more success, more qualifications to be assistant NHL coach or AHL coach. BUT, we made a commitment a few years back now with the Yeo hire to go younger. We wanted the new blood. We started keeping our draft picks, we let the older UFAs go, we moved on from Shatty and Stastny. That track disappeared this last year out of necessity, because we had to keep Sydor and Berube without having an AHL squad. Arguably, that represented an opportunity to change course; say “nah, we feel differently now, and we are going to act as though the time is now, there is no time to develop players or coaches within the organization, and so we need to trade prospects and picks and go with coaches who can step in and replicate what they’ve already done at the NHL level.”

But we aren’t doing that. We’re going with a guy who hasn’t ever coached in the NHL, hasn’t ever won any championships anywhere, and has only a very (relatively) short resume. And on top of that, the guy who were hoping to give the keys to the car which will develop our prospects and lead this team to victory has an even shorter resume, and also hasn’t ever won anything. Why? Well because they’ve both proven that they have new ideas to bring to the table, they have shown an ability to develop prospects, and they are both considered to be apart of the “next wave” of NHL coaches. We aren’t putting Larry Robinson back behind the bench, we’re letting him watch from above and provide feedback to help us develop these coaches as much as the players we’re bringing along.

Now you bring up the draft pick. Yeah, Army said it provides us with an opportunity to enter the trade market if it makes sense. I’m not sold that it will necessarily make sense, but it’s what he said. Point conceded. But what he also said, and most people are intentionally leaving out, is that we aren’t trading the big 4, and that includes Tage Thompson. We traded Stastny for who? Not a top 6 guy, but a 1st rounder and a prospect. I don’t think - and this is my perspective/opinion/whatever - that we did that just to turn around and empty the clip again. I think we did that because we are re-committing ourselves to the mission we set out on after losing in the WCFs a few years back. We weren’t good enough to get over the hump. What will help us get over the hump? Not having to go out and spend needless assets on depth pieces that really aren’t all that helpful (Michalek, Jokinen, Goc), or try to scrape the bottom of the barrel (Gomez, Havlat, Zubrus) just to get some semblance of depth, because we’ve already built that depth from within, and all we have to do is call these guys up from the AHL and slide them in and we’re good to go.

That, to me, is the narrative of what is happening with this franchise right now. We aren’t freaking out about our window, we’re trying our best to do this thing right. When we start winning again, yeah, maybe it starts to make sense to go out and make some noise on the trade market. I’m not like ethically opposed to trading, this just isn’t the right time imo to go trading prospects before we even know what we’ve got. The young hires, and the trade strategy that we’ve pursued in the last few years makes me think that that is where this front office is as well. The fact that Sanford and Foley were drafted in years where we had our weakest drafts is not a coincidence, imo. We’re playing catch up. It just doesn’t strike me as likely that now, after aaallllll of that, that we’ll go out and say “yeah, you know Fabbri+Thompson+Barbashev+#29 makes a ton of sense, let’s pull that trigger.” So, I agree, these things don’t represent a change in plans at all, they represent us sticking to the plan that most fans seem to have forgotten about in their blind rage about missing the playoffs. When Armstrong received his contract extension, he would have had to have demonstrated to ownership that he had a plan to develop this team and win a cup. My opinion is that even though fans expectations may have changed, that plan probably hasn’t, and rightfully so.

Does that make more sense?

 

[MissouriMook]

Without quoting the whole thing, I agree with most of Morty’s post, but I think there are far more shades of gray than he is accounting for. It doesn’t have to be entirely “develop all prospects, eyes on the future” just as it doesn’t have to be “sell off what you have to in order to win now”. I think Army is serious about pulling out all the stops to land Tavares, and you’re handicapping your chances if you go to July 1 looking like you’re re-tooling. I still think Army makes one big move for a Top 6 forward at or before the draft. I think he knows he has to in order to make this a top landing spot for the big fish.

 

[Dbrownss]

Yea I don't think it's any secret Tavares is the prime objective moving forward.

 

[Zamadoo]

Good convo. I think the trade that makes sense is Sobotka, Berglund, Jaybo, and/or Gunnarsson + 1st for salary relief (or add prospects for top 6 RW).

 

[Majorityof1]

Well, there’s plenty of older coaches out there. Plenty of guys with more experience, more success, more qualifications to be assistant NHL coach or AHL coach. BUT, we made a commitment a few years back now with the Yeo hire to go younger. We wanted the new blood. We started keeping our draft picks, we let the older UFAs go, we moved on from Shatty and Stastny. That track disappeared this last year out of necessity, because we had to keep Sydor and Berube without having an AHL squad. Arguably, that represented an opportunity to change course; say “nah, we feel differently now, and we are going to act as though the time is now, there is no time to develop players or coaches within the organization, and so we need to trade prospects and picks and go with coaches who can step in and replicate what they’ve already done at the NHL level.”

But we aren’t doing that. We’re going with a guy who hasn’t ever coached in the NHL, hasn’t ever won any championships anywhere, and has only a very (relatively) short resume. And on top of that, the guy who were hoping to give the keys to the car which will develop our prospects and lead this team to victory has an even shorter resume, and also hasn’t ever won anything. Why? Well because they’ve both proven that they have new ideas to bring to the table, they have shown an ability to develop prospects, and they are both considered to be apart of the “next wave” of NHL coaches. We aren’t putting Larry Robinson back behind the bench, we’re letting him watch from above and provide feedback to help us develop these coaches as much as the players we’re bringing along.

Now you bring up the draft pick. Yeah, Army said it provides us with an opportunity to enter the trade market if it makes sense. I’m not sold that it will necessarily make sense, but it’s what he said. Point conceded. But what he also said, and most people are intentionally leaving out, is that we aren’t trading the big 4, and that includes Tage Thompson. We traded Stastny for who? Not a top 6 guy, but a 1st rounder and a prospect. I don’t think - and this is my perspective/opinion/whatever - that we did that just to turn around and empty the clip again. I think we did that because we are re-committing ourselves to the mission we set out on after losing in the WCFs a few years back. We weren’t good enough to get over the hump. What will help us get over the hump? Not having to go out and spend needless assets on depth pieces that really aren’t all that helpful (Michalek, Jokinen, Goc), or try to scrape the bottom of the barrel (Gomez, Havlat, Zubrus) just to get some semblance of depth, because we’ve already built that depth from within, and all we have to do is call these guys up from the AHL and slide them in and we’re good to go.

That, to me, is the narrative of what is happening with this franchise right now. We aren’t freaking out about our window, we’re trying our best to do this thing right. When we start winning again, yeah, maybe it starts to make sense to go out and make some noise on the trade market. I’m not like ethically opposed to trading, this just isn’t the right time imo to go trading prospects before we even know what we’ve got. The young hires, and the trade strategy that we’ve pursued in the last few years makes me think that that is where this front office is as well. The fact that Sanford and Foley were drafted in years where we had our weakest drafts is not a coincidence, imo. We’re playing catch up. It just doesn’t strike me as likely that now, after aaallllll of that, that we’ll go out and say “yeah, you know Fabbri+Thompson+Barbashev+#29 makes a ton of sense, let’s pull that trigger.” So, I agree, these things don’t represent a change in plans at all, they represent us sticking to the plan that most fans seem to have forgotten about in their blind rage about missing the playoffs. When Armstrong received his contract extension, he would have had to have demonstrated to ownership that he had a plan to develop this team and win a cup. My opinion is that even though fans expectations may have changed, that plan probably hasn’t, and rightfully so.

Does that make more sense?

Still doesn't make sense. I mean, I can see the leaps in logic you are making, I just don't necessarily agree with them.

Is Yeo necessarily new blood? He is young, but we were worried that he was going to be too similar to Hitch. That didn't turn out to be the case, but it is also not accurate to say he is revolutionary in his approach. We signed Berube, who isn't new. Why did we "have" to keep him in the organization if we wanted to go in a younger, fresher direction? When we needed a goalie coach, we hired the same one that has been working with Allen forever. Also, how does us kicking tires on Todd Nelson effect your narrative? Van Ryn was plan B because Nelson signed with the Stars. Nelson has NHL experience both as head coach and assistant and has won the AHL cup. So he doesn't fit the mold of what you describe, even though he is youngish at 49.

And none of that connects to what we are doing with our players. Maybe we are playing the long game and developing coaches. Or maybe Armstrong is doing what he always does and is chasing trends. Look at the last several 5 years of Stanley cup finalist coaches and their age when they made it: Gallant (54), Trotz (55), Sullivan (49) Sullivan (48), Laviolette (52), DeBoer (47), Quenville (56), Cooper (47), Sutter (55), and Vingneault (53). Some of those guys didn't have a long resume either. Plus, with Yeo being young and not having a long resume, we may not want to hire a coach who will chafe at following his lead. Either one is a legitimate reason Armstrong may have hired a younger guy, outside of some organizational plan to slowly build the team through draft picks.

When did Army say we weren't trading any of the "big 4" specifically? Here is a quote I found:

"The thing that I think about the most is, the potential trades that were there, were they worth two of our top prospects?” Armstrong said. “I didn’t think so at the time. I still don’t think so today. But all I know is it sucks sitting here today — it really does. So now, how would I have been if we had moved two of our top prospects for a guy and be sitting here in two weeks? That would probably have sucked more.”

So It's not that he didn't want to trade any of "the big 4", but that he didn't feel the players were worth 2 of our top prospects. 1 of our top prospects? 1 prospect and a draft pick? He never said he wouldn't make that move. JR, when talking about the potential deals, wrote "That might have meant dealing one of the “Big Four”", but nowhere does Armstrong himself make reference to any number of prospects or the name of any prospect who is off limits.

That was also when discussing Hoffman and Pacioretty. I believe Ryan O'Reilly and Kessel are another level. They have more term for one, and I believe are in at least the next tier of talent. So who knows if multiple prospects are worth those guys, as they were not on the table at the deadline. They key takeaway is that despite how awful our team was, Armstrong was trying to find help. He just wasn't willing to overpay for it, especially with how poorly we played.

I do agree that Armstrong has recommitted himself to playing it safer, but safer isn't safe. He has also tried to field a winning team. He used picks to dump Lehtera and get Schenn. If we were really on a 3-4 year ramp up, we wouldn't have needed the cap space saved by dumping Lehtera. Arstrong wants to field a competitive team, he just doesn't want to mortgage the entire future to do it. That is about balance. Trading a couple future pieces for a win now piece after making a deadline deal to get a couple future pieces for an expiring asset is balance. Tis team needs help to make the playoffs. Free agency has not been kind to us in improving the team. So that means making a trade, which Armstrong as recently as the trade deadline, has shown a willingness to do for the right deal.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

Yeah, I don’t think he’s trading them out without getting term back, because there are still some massive question marks to manage through on the 2018-2019 roster. However, I don’t believe he would hold as hard of a line if we we getting something he can plug in years beyond in return. Don’t see it as him taking those 4 off limits as a matter of principle altogether.

 

[EastonBlues22]

When did Army say we weren't trading any of the "big 4" specifically?

I think he's referring to this:

“There was no shortage of phone calls on four particular players — (Klim) Kostin, (Jordan) Kyrou, (Tage) Thompson and (Robert) Thomas,” Armstrong said Monday. “We weren’t going to move one of those players for something that was a 12- to 18-month stop-gap situation, and so that took us out of the market on a lot of the players that moved today.”

Deadline decisions: Skidding Blues keep top prospects, send Stastny to Jets

There were other quotes to that effect scattered here and there as well.

I think he might be mis-remembering that sentiment as they won't be moved at all, not just for rental type players, but since most of the players known to be available are rental players anyway, I'm not sure if it makes that much difference practically speaking. Guys like ROR, Kessel, Johnson, etc. might be rumored to be "available," but there's much less reason to actually move those guys than there is a rental so it feels mostly like wishful speculation to me.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

For the record, we interviewed Nelson and chose Van Ryn instead.

Mike Van Ryn returns to the Blues, this time to make his...

It’s a good interview for those who are subscribed to the Athletic

 

[Dbrownss]

For the record, we interviewed Nelson and chose Van Ryn instead.

Mike Van Ryn returns to the Blues, this time to make his...

It’s a good interview for those who are subscribed to the Athletic

Glad you caught that....I skimmed through it. I'll have to go actually read it. Every lengthy

 

[The Note in MI]

I didn’t quite read it as we interviewed Nelson and moved on, rather as a PC way of saying Nelson chose Dallas so next up was Van Ryn.

 

[WeWentBlues]

I didn’t quite read it as we interviewed Nelson and moved on, rather as a PC way of saying Nelson chose Dallas so next up was Van Ryn.

That way I see it is that Van Ryn was specifically hired to coach the defense to replace Sydor. Not sure Blues were considering Nelson specifically for that role.

Ultimately Stars hired him to be assistant coach. Not sure Blues would have offered a similar position.

 

[Stealth JD]

Good convo. I think the trade that makes sense is Sobotka, Berglund, Jaybo, and/or Gunnarsson + 1st for salary relief (or add prospects for top 6 RW).

With that package, who are we targeting...Troy Brouwer?

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I didn’t quite read it as we interviewed Nelson and moved on, rather as a PC way of saying Nelson chose Dallas so next up was Van Ryn.

The paragraph in question is:
“After that decision was made, the Blues interviewed several replacement candidates, including former Edmonton coach Todd Nelson, before choosing Van Ryn.”

That sounds like the Blues chose Van Ryn over Nelson to me.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

The paragraph in question is:
“After that decision was made, the Blues interviewed several replacement candidates, including former Edmonton coach Todd Nelson, before choosing Van Ryn.”

That sounds like the Blues chose Van Ryn over Nelson to me.

Actually, that sounds like the Blues just interviewed everyone and chose Van Ryn. I can’t make any conclusion of what happened with Nelson in the process. So whether Nelson chose the Stars over the Blues, or the Blues chose Van Ryn over Nelson is not clear.

Although I will say that I’m basing this assessment off your quote.

 

[The Note in MI]

The paragraph in question is:
“After that decision was made, the Blues interviewed several replacement candidates, including former Edmonton coach Todd Nelson, before choosing Van Ryn.”

That sounds like the Blues chose Van Ryn over Nelson to me.

Exactly. While I said that it sounds like a nice way of saying this was who we interviewed and this is who we have. Without saying we didn’t want Nelson or Nelson didn’t want us.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Disclaimer: I don't think this "proves" anything, and I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda, support or undermine any previous arguments that may or may not have been made, etc. I just found this interesting and I hadn't seen it before, so I decided to share.

According to The Athletic, the Blues were the second tallest and second heaviest team in the NHL last year, as well as the 8th oldest team, averaging 73.9 inches, 206.6 lbs, and 27.8 years of age. I would not have guessed their ranking in the height/weight categories was that high.

The NHL average was 73.1 inches, 200.7 lbs, and 27.1 years of age, for the record.

Here's how the final four stacked up for those curious people out there.

VGK: 72.9 (19th tallest), 199.5 (18th heaviest), 26.9 (21st oldest)
WPG: 74.1 (1st tallest), 204.8 (6th heaviest), 26.8 (22nd oldest)

WAS: 73.4 (6th tallest), 205.1 (3rd heaviest), 27.5 (13th oldest)
TB: 72.5 (30th tallest), 193.9 (31st heaviest), 27.6 (12th oldest)

Dallas, St. Louis, and Winnipeg were in a cluster by themselves as far and away the three biggest teams in the league by combination of height/weight. Tampa Bay was by far the smallest, with nobody else particularly close.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

For the record, we interviewed Nelson and chose Van Ryn instead.

Mike Van Ryn returns to the Blues, this time to make his...

It’s a good interview for those who are subscribed to the Athletic

Article also makes it sound like Sydor may have ongoing alcohol issues. Hopefully he can get things right with his life.

 

[stl76]

Wasn't sure where to post this....but today is Patrik Berglund's bday! I'm sure everyone, especially Ranksu, will want to wish their favorite Blues player a very happy birthday...