Yep, and before him it was Kitchen, same with Q.
That’s an exhausting argument. There are absolutely reasonable suggestions for alternatives, but some people just won’t acknowledge them. There are plenty of candidates out there - it would be Stillman’s job to find the best one. Saying “there isn’t one” is so ignorant.
And even more specifically on how I think the process would play out, I'd expect MacInnis and/or Mellanby to conduct the search. Unless MacInnis wants the job, I see him as the obvious link between the owners and conducting the search for the new GM. I feel like it was said in the past that it's a job he doesn't want and he likes his current role. If he does want it, he probably has the inside track. If Army lasts awhile longer, Steen makes sense as the internal replacement, if Steen wants to live in the States, but he could prefer to just stay in Sweden/Europe.
Yeah exactly. I’m not opposed to a former player like MacInnis or Steen getting a crack at it if they want the job. Maybe even Pronger.
And yet you chose to prove my side of the argument by failing to suggest even one name as an alternative. Until someone puts a name and a face to that side of the argument it is still just yelling at clouds.
Yep. Pronger also left Florida, so I'm not sure how many of those former stars are either interested in the job or ready for it, but at least we have hockey people in the org that wouldn't be fired in the event that they fire Army and people more closely associated with him, and they'd be able to conduct a search. Maybe that's looking at people tied to the org or trying to hire the next rising candidate, similar to how we lost Bill Armstrong.
Lmao such a weak argument. I gave you the exact positions of the guys I would be interviewing. You can stop being lazy and look up their names yourself if you want that information so bad. Or I just named a few former Blues players who may be worth a look in my most recent post.
MacInnis is basically in a job for PR reasons. He doesn't deal with day-to-day team roster functions, or instruction, or any of that stuff. You might as well ask Brett Hull what he thinks about the next GM.
Someone please explain this great fascination with Alex Steen being a GM. It's like saying Glen Wesley or Matt D'Agostini or Chris Thorburn could be the next head coach because they're currently player development coaches, except ... Steen is a consultant. In Europe. And a former Blues player. It's like saying "maybe we could have Hitchcock take over again" because he's in the organization as a coaching consultant.
Here you go again. You tell me to "look them up" and to "stop being lazy", but all you have to offer is "guys like..." and then name guys who were hired without GM experience, but THEY AREN'T AVAILABLE! You know as well as I do that if we hired a guy that has no experience people would be calling for his head after the first bad deal. Look at all the heat (rightly so) that Grier is getting in San Jose and Conroy in Calgary - is that really what you want here?
No shit sherlock. I'm not saying MacInnis or Mellanby would get the GM job, I said they would be involved in the search from the Blues side of things, the ownership would probably lean on them in a situation where Army is fired and we aren't looking at guys more connected to Army to replace him or conduct the search. It wouldn't make much sense to fire Army and then look at his guys to replace him or find their new boss. If Army is out the door, Chiarelli is joining him, and I'm unsure on Taylor, but I doubt Taylor has the inside track. Taylor might have an inside track if Army just transitions to an adivsor role or pure President role.
Like other former players, he left it because he didn't want it. It's possible that the St. Louis job would interest him more, but some former players have an itch to get back into the game and then realize they don't want to work all the required hours and would rather enjoy retirement.
He's had 3 drafts, so no point in judging him until those players develop.
He also wanted to put everything he had into his travel business.
If being snotty helps you feel better when you respond, OK. Not going to help with a productive discussion, but that's not my problem.
"Hey Al, we're looking for a GM, got any insights?"
Right, and then we start falling into
Which then becomes the "... and so we can't fire Armstrong" justification for keeping Armstrong around.
I know people who want to be a CEO, think they'll be good at it. I wouldn't put them in the #3 spot in a company if there were only 2 other employees in the company.
It's really clear you have no clue what I think. I'm just asking for what makes Steen qualified to go from "looks at players in Europe, talks to them about what to do to make the jump to North America" to "can negotiate contracts, build a roster and lay out a vision for making an organization successful both short-term and long-term."
I'm not the one that started being obnoxious here, but I'm more than willing to respond with it.
I agree on Hanifin, my point was just that the statement that he was looking into adding at the deadline, but didn't, means nothing. We have no idea what he was looking at adding. Maybe it was a rental, maybe it was a Morgan Frost, maybe it was something else. I just got the sense from some posters on here acting like Army has no idea what he's doing because god forbid he said in an interview that he was looking at adding a piece at the trade deadline.
I don't disagree with you, I'm disagreeing with the posters that are pretending that Army viewed this team as an actual playoff team and using that view as a reason of him being out of touch and a reason for why he should be fired.
Hanifin as a pure rental was dirt cheap, I agree, we weren't in a position to acquire a rental. My point here was just to say, Army saying that he looked at adding during the trade deadline doesn't mean he was willing to trade futures for a rental, another argument used by some here for why he should be fired. We have no idea what he was looking at adding.
What we do with Buchnevich at the draft or next deadline is how I'll evaluate this deadline. Buch was really the only meaningful move we could've made, and I can't really evaluate a non-move until we see what the actual move looks like. Do we move him at the draft? Do we extend him? Do we hold until next trade deadline? Option 1 or 2 is the preference here, and with option 2, if we extend him, the contract better make sense.
What has Army done that has been jumping from lane to lane. Do you believe that GMs are only able to sell or only able to buy at the deadline, they can't do both?
