OT: Should Doug Armstrong get fired?

[BlueSeal]

We got a Cup out of this last group.

 

[Louie the Blue]

I didn't like the Oshie deal either, but like the Dunn offers, I doubt people were offering a ton for Oshie, especially since Army was looking for someone that could make an impact immediately. And that 3rd we got, we used to trade up to get Tage Thompson. Brouwer, even though it was just 1 season, formed a great like with Stastny and Fabbri. That deal I hated at the time, but it really wasn't that bad in the end.

It wasn't bad in that it didn't harm the team long-term but it's still terrible asset management, which in part was due to Armstrong being hell-bent on moving someone. Similar to how he probably hampered Shattenkirk's value with trying to move him before the season and then still wanting to move him during the season.

I think holistically I'd probably rate Armstrong's tenure B/B+. He's done more good than bad with the organization. His decision making probably negatively impacted 4 seasons substantially (2013-2014, 2017-2018, 2020-2021, 2022-2023). Some could view his loyalty to Hitchcock as a deterrent, when in retrospect Hitchcock probably should have been let go after losing to the Wild in 2014-2015 before creating a self-inflicted lame duck season for 2016-2017 given the success of 2016-2016.

But to openly call for Doug Armstrong's firing is pretty outrageous in my mind and I do not understand the post made by @Ted Hoffman at all. There's no team(s) out there since the Cap was established that have been able to sustain a high level of performance without transitioning from one core to another aside from maybe Pittsburgh, who have two Hall of Fame players as apart of their core. Chicago, LA, and Boston all experienced downswings after winning a Cup/contending for multiple years. The Blues are experiencing that, too.

I'm curious who would be Armstrong's replacement as well as there aren't many GMs I can think of that are as established or successful as him.

 

[TheDizee]

It wasn't bad in that it didn't harm the team long-term but it's still terrible asset management, which in part was due to Armstrong being hell-bent on moving someone. Similar to how he probably hampered Shattenkirk's value with trying to move him before the season and then still wanting to move him during the season.

I think holistically I'd probably rate Armstrong's tenure B/B+. He's done more good than bad with the organization. His decision making probably negatively impacted 4 seasons substantially (2013-2014, 2017-2018, 2020-2021, 2022-2023). Some could view his loyalty to Hitchcock as a deterrent, when in retrospect Hitchcock probably should have been let go after losing to the Wild in 2014-2015 before creating a self-inflicted lame duck season for 2016-2017 given the success of 2016-2016.

But to openly call for Doug Armstrong's firing is pretty outrageous in my mind and I do not understand the post made by @Ted Hoffman at all. There's no team(s) out there since the Cap was established that have been able to sustain a high level of performance without transitioning from one core to another aside from maybe Pittsburgh, who have two Hall of Fame players as apart of their core. Chicago, LA, and Boston all experienced downswings after winning a Cup/contending for multiple years. The Blues are experiencing that, too.

I'm curious who would be Armstrong's replacement as well as there aren't many GMs I can think of that are as established or successful as him.

Pittsburgh hasnt been relevant in years TBH. They are in the same boat detroit was. yeah they might make the playoffs but they arnt going anywhere.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Pittsburgh hasnt been relevant in years TBH. They are in the same boat detroit was. yeah they might make the playoffs but they arnt going anywhere.

I don't necessarily disagree but the fact that they are the only team to repeat since the salary cap was instituted, which was 6 years after the first cup with Crosby/Malkin/Letang with a largely different supporting cast is still very impressive to me.

At this point I wouldn't expect much out of them, but they're the closest team to competing annually since the cap was instituted as they haven't missed the POs. Next closest would probably be I think Boston.

The broader point I was trying to get at is it's very hard and unrealistic to expect a team to contend for a cup every season and the Blues aren't any different. That era of Blues history is done with and I think the next era of the team seriously contending for a cup again is probably 2-3 years away.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

But to openly call for Doug Armstrong's firing is pretty outrageous in my mind and I do not understand the post made by @Ted Hoffman at all. There's no team(s) out there since the Cap was established that have been able to sustain a high level of performance without transitioning from one core to another aside from maybe Pittsburgh, who have two Hall of Fame players as apart of their core. Chicago, LA, and Boston all experienced downswings after winning a Cup/contending for multiple years. The Blues are experiencing that, too.

I'm curious who would be Armstrong's replacement as well as there aren't many GMs I can think of that are as established or successful as him.

1. It's only outrageous because you don't agree with it.
2. I'm pretty certain I outlined my reasoning earlier, and I've done so many times in the past. If you don't understand it, keep reading it - except do it with an open mind - before objecting. Eventually, it will click and you'll understand, even if you still don't want to agree with it.
3. The point about contending doesn't just rely on "teams that won a Cup" but since you offered a list of teams, you also forgot to mention Tampa Bay, who won back-to-back Cups and went to the Finals last year along with a trip to the Finals and a pair of trips to the ECF before that. I'd say that's a pretty notable omission. Or the Rangers, who had a 4-year span of ECF, Finals, CSF, ECF before rebuilding and then going to the ECF last season. Or San Jose, who between 2004 and 2019 went to the WCF more times than it didn't win in the 1st round. The closest comparison to us is Washington, who thrice lost to the eventual Cup champions in the 2nd round before finally breaking through - but even that team was built around the idea that it could win a Cup and didn't need a weird set of circumstances to make it happen.
4. It's not that the team has to be in the Finals every year. It's not even about how the team transitions from one core to another. It's about inheriting a core group primed for success and supplementing it to see it achieve more than 3 playoff series wins in 5 years - 2 in one year. It's about having a plan to win the Cup, and executing on that plan, not a shit everything went to hell, ... f*** it, we'll do this because the season is pretty well shot, let's just get through to the spring and then we'll fix everything again plan that happens to go spectacularly better than anyone would have ever imagined.

This wasn't the Blues from 1997-2002, where 5 of the 6 years they lost to the eventual Cup champions and you can't argue yeah, but our teams were better, we still should have won those series. I can make a solid argument that we should have won at least one series in 2014 and 2015. Maybe even '13. They didn't. That fault lies at someone's feet; Armstrong says "the responsibility is mine" - I say hold him accountable for it, especially since he decided roster moves before and after, chose his own head coaches, etc. The fact that the team won a Cup in 2019 largely in spite of his original plans isn't a stroke of genius like some want to think. It was massively dumb luck. A stroke of genius would have been following that up with success. It would have been taking the core you [Armstrong] created and making it successful, having it put up more than 1 series win before it fell apart spectacularly this year and having to sell off for future pieces that ... might be a soft rebuild? Might be a longer-term rebuild? Who knows?

But, that's my opinion. You and others are free to (and will) disagree as you see fit.

 

[Louie the Blue]

1. It's only outrageous because you don't agree with it.
2. I'm pretty certain I outlined my reasoning earlier, and I've done so many times in the past. If you don't understand it, keep reading it - except do it with an open mind - before objecting. Eventually, it will click and you'll understand, even if you still don't want to agree with it.
3. The point about contending doesn't just rely on "teams that won a Cup" but since you offered a list of teams, you also forgot to mention Tampa Bay, who won back-to-back Cups and went to the Finals last year along with a trip to the Finals and a pair of trips to the ECF before that. I'd say that's a pretty notable omission. Or the Rangers, who had a 4-year span of ECF, Finals, CSF, ECF before rebuilding and then going to the ECF last season. Or San Jose, who between 2004 and 2019 went to the WCF more times than it didn't win in the 1st round. The closest comparison to us is Washington, who thrice lost to the eventual Cup champions in the 2nd round before finally breaking through - but even that team was built around the idea that it could win a Cup and didn't need a weird set of circumstances to make it happen.
4. It's not that the team has to be in the Finals every year. It's not even about how the team transitions from one core to another. It's about inheriting a core group primed for success and supplementing it to see it achieve more than 3 playoff series wins in 5 years - 2 in one year. It's about having a plan to win the Cup, and executing on that plan, not a shit everything went to hell, ... f*** it, we'll do this because the season is pretty well shot, let's just get through to the spring and then we'll fix everything again plan that happens to go spectacularly better than anyone would have ever imagined.

This wasn't the Blues from 1997-2002, where 5 of the 6 years they lost to the eventual Cup champions and you can't argue yeah, but our teams were better, we still should have won those series. I can make a solid argument that we should have won at least one series in 2014 and 2015. Maybe even '13. They didn't. That fault lies at someone's feet; Armstrong says "the responsibility is mine" - I say hold him accountable for it, especially since he decided roster moves before and after, chose his own head coaches, etc. The fact that the team won a Cup in 2019 largely in spite of his original plans isn't a stroke of genius like some want to think. It was massively dumb luck. A stroke of genius would have been following that up with success. It would have been taking the core you [Armstrong] created and making it successful, having it put up more than 1 series win before it fell apart spectacularly this year and having to sell off for future pieces that ... might be a soft rebuild? Might be a longer-term rebuild? Who knows?

But, that's my opinion. You and others are free to (and will) disagree as you see fit.

1. Agree to disagree.
2. If you're saying that the Stanley Cup was luck based, which of course it involved serious luck to go on a historic run to end the season as well as having minimal injuries in the POs, and Armstrong wasn't held accountable for locker room division or performance, you have the right to your opinion.
3. I'm not sure what you're arguing here? I said teams that transitioned their cores, which I'd argue Boston, Chicago, and LA did. They all experienced a drop in performance during that time. Tampa hasn't really had their core switched (mainly Stamkos/Hedman/insert other player here) for the better part of a decade. The Rangers transitioned away from Lundqvist. The Sharks had Thornton/Marleau for the better part of the stretch you're referring to. When they transitioned from that after 2019, they've been trash since then. Chic
4. What would you argue the core was that Armstrong inherited? Oshie, Berglund, Perron, Johnson, Pietrangelo, and Backes? Johnson never became what the organization thought he was (could argue part of that was injury based) and acquired a player that performed better relative to what he was asked to do (Shattenkirk). Oshie was horrendous in the POs here. Berglund should never have been considered a "core" player". That leaves Perron, Pietrangelo, and Backes. Perron's an enigma that I don't know how to properly describe his career arc. Armstrong successfully moved on from Backes and moving on from Pietrangelo likely led to where we are today.

 

[Ranksu]

So off-season moves by Army make this team go even worse.

 

[BrokenFace]

So off-season moves by Army make this team go even worse.

Players getting older make the team worse too. Not sure what GM can fix time though

 

[TheDizee]

So off-season moves by Army make this team go even worse.

He ruined the leadership and team chemistry.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

2. If you're saying that the Stanley Cup was luck based, which of course it involved serious luck to go on a historic run to end the season as well as having minimal injuries in the POs, and Armstrong wasn't held accountable for locker room division or performance, you have the right to your opinion.

You do realize this makes no sense, right? Of course Armstrong wasn't held accountable for locker room division or performance. He got another contract for winning the Cup. Being held accountable would have meant Stillman saying "I'm not investing 5 more years in you, I'll go 2 + options, prove to me you've learned your lesson / show me that wasn't a giant fluke" or "I'm not letting you remain President of Hockey Operations, much less adding some other pithy title to your business card and LinkedIn profile." Armstrong paid zero price for it. He got an even more full backing of Stillman, with more carte blanche to spend money.

If you have any idea how he might have been held accountable in some way though ... please, do tell. Offer up your suggestions, let's see if they remotely match reality.

The point about it all being luck, though, ... I've said this dozens of times, I'll ask it in question format: do you really think Armstrong's master plan circa October 3, 2018 for winning a Stanley Cup had Craig Berube taking over as the head coach ~19 games in and Jordan Binnington coming in midseason and taking over as the team's starting goalie?

Because if it was, then he's beyond super genius level, and if anything I'm more disappointed that he hasn't used that uber-super genius intellect to get us more than one Cup in his tenure here. I'm going to go with the simpler explanation, though: it was luck of mythic proportions, and everything that's happened since - moving players out, rebuilding a roster that's been increasingly based on guys who didn't come through the system, sinking long-term contracts with NTC into guys who were questionable building blocks anyway and are increasingly albatrosses we can't get rid of - underscores that for all the "great trades he wins" he cannot construct a quality roster that can make semi-consistent deep postseason runs and which ultimately led to this season's disaster.

And at some point, he needs to pay for his sins instead of throwing others under the bus for it - and not just with some vague, unfounded I'm sure he's been held accountable claim that might as well be a naughty finger-wag and a terse don't you do that again, mister, or .... [foot stomp] I'll be ... I'll be very cross with you, young man! tongue-lashing.

YMMV, obviously.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Almost every other team has at least one person in the chain of command between the GM and ownership.

Blues do not

 

[BlueSeal]

Army makes business decisions, not "hockey" decisions.

 

[Xerloris]

You do realize this makes no sense, right? Of course Armstrong wasn't held accountable for locker room division or performance. He got another contract for winning the Cup. Being held accountable would have meant Stillman saying "I'm not investing 5 more years in you, I'll go 2 + options, prove to me you've learned your lesson / show me that wasn't a giant fluke" or "I'm not letting you remain President of Hockey Operations, much less adding some other pithy title to your business card and LinkedIn profile." Armstrong paid zero price for it. He got an even more full backing of Stillman, with more carte blanche to spend money.

If you have any idea how he might have been held accountable in some way though ... please, do tell. Offer up your suggestions, let's see if they remotely match reality.

The point about it all being luck, though, ... I've said this dozens of times, I'll ask it in question format: do you really think Armstrong's master plan circa October 3, 2018 for winning a Stanley Cup had Craig Berube taking over as the head coach ~19 games in and Jordan Binnington coming in midseason and taking over as the team's starting goalie?

Because if it was, then he's beyond super genius level, and if anything I'm more disappointed that he hasn't used that uber-super genius intellect to get us more than one Cup in his tenure here. I'm going to go with the simpler explanation, though: it was luck of mythic proportions, and everything that's happened since - moving players out, rebuilding a roster that's been increasingly based on guys who didn't come through the system, sinking long-term contracts with NTC into guys who were questionable building blocks anyway and are increasingly albatrosses we can't get rid of - underscores that for all the "great trades he wins" he cannot construct a quality roster that can make semi-consistent deep postseason runs and which ultimately led to this season's disaster.

And at some point, he needs to pay for his sins instead of throwing others under the bus for it - and not just with some vague, unfounded I'm sure he's been held accountable claim that might as well be a naughty finger-wag and a terse don't you do that again, mister, or .... [foot stomp] I'll be ... I'll be very cross with you, young man! tongue-lashing.

YMMV, obviously.

You could argue that Armstrong put us into a position to succeed and that's all a GM can really do.

 

[Louie the Blue]

The point about it all being luck, though, ... I've said this dozens of times, I'll ask it in question format: do you really think Armstrong's master plan circa October 3, 2018 for winning a Stanley Cup had Craig Berube taking over as the head coach ~19 games in and Jordan Binnington coming in midseason and taking over as the team's starting goalie?

Of course not. However, I do believe the majority of his decisions were right more often than they were wrong.

Let's run through teams since 2010 and if their team structure went perfectly according to plan:

2010: Arguably the most stacked team since the Cap. Went according to plan.
2011: I'll say Chiarelli's roster build went according to plan.
2012: Lombardi's vision involved firing the coach mid-season and hiring Sutter, so it did not go according to plan.
2013: Blackhawks win went according to plan (had a historic start to the season, too).
2014: Kings won using Lombardi's master plan.
2015: Blackhawks win according to plan.
2016: No, the Penguins winning did not go as Rutherford planned. Firing Johnston mid-season and playing Murray in the playoffs over Flower is not at all how he envisioned the team winning a Cup.
2017: Penguins were able to defend according to plan.
2018: Yes, Caps win how they envisioned.
2019: No, Blues do not win Cup how Armstrong planned, with Berube being promoted as well as Allen being benched.
2020: Lightning win a Cup finally and their roster was constructed how Yzerman/BriseBois intended
2021: See above but for a repeat.
2022: Avs win accordingly based on Sakic's gamble with Kuemper.

So, based off that, 2011 Bruins, 2012 Kings, 2016 Penguins, and 2019 Blues did not win how their FO intended.

Do you think Lombardi should've been fired? I'd compare what he did most similar to the Blues, considering their rebuild occurred around the same time as the Blues after the 05-06 lockout.

 

[BrokenFace]

Of course not. However, I do believe the majority of his decisions were right more often than they were wrong.

Let's run through teams since 2010 and if their team structure went perfectly according to plan:

2010: Arguably the most stacked team since the Cap. Went according to plan.
2011: I'll say Chiarelli's roster build went according to plan.
2012: Lombardi's vision involved firing the coach mid-season and hiring Sutter, so it did not go according to plan.
2013: Blackhawks win went according to plan (had a historic start to the season, too).
2014: Kings won using Lombardi's master plan.
2015: Blackhawks win according to plan.
2016: No, the Penguins winning did not go as Rutherford planned. Firing Johnston mid-season and playing Murray in the playoffs over Flower is not at all how he envisioned the team winning a Cup.
2017: Penguins were able to defend according to plan.
2018: Yes, Caps win how they envisioned.
2019: No, Blues do not win Cup how Armstrong planned, with Berube being promoted as well as Allen being benched.
2020: Lightning win a Cup finally and their roster was constructed how Yzerman/BriseBois intended
2021: See above but for a repeat.
2022: Avs win accordingly based on Sakic's gamble with Kuemper.

So, based off that, 2011 Bruins, 2012 Kings, 2016 Penguins, and 2019 Blues did not win how their FO intended.

Do you think Lombardi should've been fired? I'd compare what he did most similar to the Blues, considering their rebuild occurred around the same time as the Blues after the 05-06 lockout.

One thing to add, I believe the Caps won a year later than expected. I remember a lot of talk about how 2015-16 and 2016-17 were the years they needed to win because several guys would need new contracts/raises after that. Not that they weren't trying to win in 2018, but it just adds to the point that you can plan all you want but the year you win it might not have even been your best chance of winning it. You can plan perfectly and lose as favorites, then get lucky and win as a dog the next year.

 

[BlueSeal]

Of course not. However, I do believe the majority of his decisions were right more often than they were wrong.

Let's run through teams since 2010 and if their team structure went perfectly according to plan:

2010: Arguably the most stacked team since the Cap. Went according to plan.
2011: I'll say Chiarelli's roster build went according to plan.
2012: Lombardi's vision involved firing the coach mid-season and hiring Sutter, so it did not go according to plan.
2013: Blackhawks win went according to plan (had a historic start to the season, too).
2014: Kings won using Lombardi's master plan.
2015: Blackhawks win according to plan.
2016: No, the Penguins winning did not go as Rutherford planned. Firing Johnston mid-season and playing Murray in the playoffs over Flower is not at all how he envisioned the team winning a Cup.
2017: Penguins were able to defend according to plan.
2018: Yes, Caps win how they envisioned.
2019: No, Blues do not win Cup how Armstrong planned, with Berube being promoted as well as Allen being benched.
2020: Lightning win a Cup finally and their roster was constructed how Yzerman/BriseBois intended
2021: See above but for a repeat.
2022: Avs win accordingly based on Sakic's gamble with Kuemper.

So, based off that, 2011 Bruins, 2012 Kings, 2016 Penguins, and 2019 Blues did not win how their FO intended.

Do you think Lombardi should've been fired? I'd compare what he did most similar to the Blues, considering their rebuild occurred around the same time as the Blues after the 05-06 lockout.

Consistency and stability wins Cups. Luck wins a Cup. We are the later.

Saying that, Army is good at value. I wouldn’t trust Army with chemistry or the intangibles that make a team, a team. His end is far too business for my taste.

 

[Frenzy31]

Consistency and stability wins Cups. Luck wins a Cup. We are the later.

Saying that, Army is good at value. I wouldn’t trust Army with chemistry or the intangibles that make a team, a team. His end is far too business for my taste.

I disagree. This team has been very good over the past 13 years coming out of a rebuild. Finals once, cup winner. And frankly, this team was fantastic post cup season. COVID screwed us. So I see us as very consistent.

 

[BlueSeal]

I disagree. This team has been very good over the past 13 years coming out of a rebuild. Conference Finals once, cup winner. And frankly, this team was fantastic post cup season. COVID screwed us. So I see us as very consistent.

 

[stlbluz]

I disagree. This team has been very good over the past 13 years coming out of a rebuild. Finals once, cup winner. And frankly, this team was fantastic post cup season. COVID screwed us. So I see us as very consistent.

Bingo! Yes there was luck to the cup, always is, but we were poised for another run & then covid struck. People tend to forget this.

Kinda poetic that the Blues win the Cup & the world comes to a halt.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I disagree. This team has been very good over the past 13 years coming out of a rebuild. Finals once, cup winner. And frankly, this team was fantastic post cup season. COVID screwed us. So I see us as very consistent.

We've been very consistent, in that we've been really good in the postseason and (as always, excluding 2019) not as good in the postseason.

Regular season? We've averaged 104 points per 82 games from 2011-12 through 2021-22. Average conference finish of 4th, and that includes missing the playoffs in 2018 (9th). [2021 is excluded, there were no conferences.]

Playoffs? The Blues under Armstrong are 50-56 in games played. 9-9 in series played. When starting a playoff series with home ice advantage (excluding the 2020 bubble, where they technically had home ice advantage), they're 3-6 in those series.

Ex-2019? They're 34-46 in games, 5-9 in series, 2-6 starting with home ice.

We can explain away the last 3 years - oh, it was the layoff after the shutdown; oh, it was injuries; oh, it was Binnington going down. Fine. The fact is, aside from one incredible, 99.9999..% certain to never be repeated season, Armstrong's teams were great in the regular season and comparatively bad thereafter, and it was even more true pre-2019 when those teams regularly pissed away series when starting at home. And I don't see it getting better near-term to the point we suddenly outperform the past, no matter how many 1st round picks we accumulate before this year's draft.

 

[BlueSeal]

We've been very consistent, in that we've been really good in the postseason and (as always, excluding 2019) not as good in the postseason.

Regular season? We've averaged 104 points per 82 games from 2011-12 through 2021-22. Average conference finish of 4th, and that includes missing the playoffs in 2018 (9th). [2021 is excluded, there were no conferences.]

Playoffs? The Blues under Armstrong are 50-56 in games played. 9-9 in series played. When starting a playoff series with home ice advantage (excluding the 2020 bubble, where they technically had home ice advantage), they're 3-6 in those series.

Ex-2019? They're 34-46 in games, 5-9 in series, 2-6 starting with home ice.

We can explain away the last 3 years - oh, it was the layoff after the shutdown; oh, it was injuries; oh, it was Binnington going down. Fine. The fact is, aside from one incredible, 99.9999..% certain to never be repeated season, Armstrong's teams were great in the regular season and comparatively bad thereafter, and it was even more true pre-2019 when those teams regularly pissed away series when starting at home. And I don't see it getting better near-term to the point we suddenly outperform the past, no matter how many 1st round picks we accumulate before this year's draft.

When the stars align you have to keep the window open for as long as you can. Folks fault teams like the Blackhawks for overpaying players but when their stars aligned, they overpaid and they got three Cups out of it.

No Blackhawks fan is sitting there going 'why did we pay them so much' without looking at the Cups.

The problem is, we're too happy with whatever we get. And the insanity of always talking about the future when you had the people you needed. Worrying about age when we should be worrying about the time of our window. We ask players to lead who may not be those people and moving out the very folks who are, expecting the draft or some miracle to befall an organization who steamrolls Torey Krug to win the Cup, then signs him to replace our 1D.

Always worrying about the future when we should have focused on the now.

And now we expect Thomas and Kyrou to be leaders? Leaders aren't built like that. They may develop into a leader in the same way as someone like David Backes or Condor but I'd rather have ROR, who has proven to be the leader we need and maybe the best leader we have ever got. If you're going to teach the kids, he's the one to do it. But we're okay with constantly changing the C. You don't think that affects the lockerroom?

I'd rather we invested and built up what was left that brought us a Cup. That's the culture worth keeping, especially in a cursed franchise like ours. But for Army it's business. Always younger. Always cheaper, always this or that. No consistancy especially when we had the pieces but now we're looking for the very pieces that we let go.

It's the 90's again. And yes Army, you are acting like you're back in Dallas. Stop that.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Condor?

 

[Xerloris]

Condor?

It's a bird.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

When the stars align you have to keep the window open for as long as you can. Folks fault teams like the Blackhawks for overpaying players but when their stars aligned, they overpaid and they got three Cups out of it.

No Blackhawks fan is sitting there going 'why did we pay them so much' without looking at the Cups.

The problem is, we're too happy with whatever we get. And the insanity of always talking about the future when you had the people you needed. Worrying about age when we should be worrying about the time of our window. We ask players to lead who may not be those people and moving out the very folks who are, expecting the draft or some miracle to befall an organization who steamrolls Torey Krug to win the Cup, then signs him to replace our 1D.

Always worrying about the future when we should have focused on the now.

And now we expect Thomas and Kyrou to be leaders? Leaders aren't built like that. They may develop into a leader in the same way as someone like David Backes or Condor but I'd rather have ROR, who has proven to be the leader we need and maybe the best leader we have ever got. If you're going to teach the kids, he's the one to do it. But we're okay with constantly changing the C. You don't think that affects the lockerroom?

I'd rather we invested and built up what was left that brought us a Cup. That's the culture worth keeping, especially in a cursed franchise like ours. But for Army it's business. Always younger. Always cheaper, always this or that. No consistancy especially when we had the pieces but now we're looking for the very pieces that we let go.

It's the 90's again. And yes Army, you are acting like you're back in Dallas. Stop that.

I don't disagree with a lot of this. I might not even disagree with the part about "constantly changing the C" though in the last 12 years we've had 3 captains (Backes, Pietrangelo, ROR) and we seemed to have weathered each change without a problem. Where I will diverge is on whether changing the captain right now affects the locker room. The captain can't be the only person who has presence in the locker room, who gives inspiration to guys, who's the one guys can go to and talk and get feedback. As I think I alluded to before, if ROR is the only leadership the locker room has, that's a serious problem. Someone else in there has to be able, willing, to step up and lead - and not just with words, not just tell everyone else we need to get it together, let's play smart and work with each other, everyone come out on that first shift firing and then they go out and put in maybe 60% effort for a period and a half and keep making stupid, selfish mistakes.

I don't care if Thomas and/or Kyrou aren't captain material. Not all top players are great leaders, even if we've long been taught that "great player" is synonymous with "great leader." That's OK. Let them go play their game, let someone else be the leader. I do care though when someone - the coach, the GM, a fellow teammate - tries repeatedly to push them and others to play more consistent, more energetic hockey and they tune it out. Or, they respond for a game and then go back to their old habits and spend the postgame making the same tepid yeah, we have to be better, we can't do that remarks like it's someone else's fault.

And when you decide to make those guys the building blocks of your future, you better be prepared for the notion that their play as leaders is going to rub off on others, If it's rubbing off in a negative way, putting a letter on their sweater as some vote of confidence in them isn't going to change that.

 

[TheDizee]

if i was GM we would be fighting for top team in the west. so sad to see what armstrong has done to this franchise. rewards losers like Kyrou and makes people like perron and chuckie outcasts. team has no heart and soul, boring loser team.