ChuckLefley
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2016
- 1,681
- 1,050
I’ll point out for those that keep bringing up the 9 NTC’s that there are 15 other teams that have 8 or more players with NTC’s or NMC’s. Someone posted it at the asylum and it checks out.
Interesting response. Did it take you long to pick those cherries?10 NTC's, 9 of which were signed by Armstrong [Hayes was inherited from Philadelphia].
Full (7) - Binnington, Schenn, Saad, Faulk, Krug, Parayko, Leddy
Partial (3) - Buchnevich [12-team NTC], Hayes [12-team NTC], Scandella [7-team NTC]
Just spot-checking: no other team has 4 defensemen signed to a full NTC for this season, much less a full NTC that extends into the final season of their contract in some way, much less signed those guys to those contracts themselves. Detroit has 5 guys with some form of a NTC, but none of them are full [Petry has a 15-team NTC, the rest have 10-team NTCs]. Toronto also has 5 guys signed to some form of a NTC, but only Reilly has a full NMC; the rest have partial NTCs, Muzzin is on LTIR and Klingberg is only for 1 season (and he's out the rest of the year). Minnesota has 3 guys with a NMC this season (Spurgeon, Brodin and Goligoski - all courtesy Bill Guerin), but Spurgeon's drops to a 10-team NTC starting next season, Brodin's trade protection drops completely after '24-25 and Goligoski's contract ends after this season.
More time than it appears you needed to think up that "response."Interesting response. Did it take you long to pick those cherries?
Apparently you care since you decided to go cherry pick teams to fit your opinion and now have written a novel about it.More time than it appears you needed to think up that "response."
So what if other teams have a ton of NTCs on the books? Are they allrebuildingreloadingrefocusing? Did that other "analysis" go through the current ages of all those guys, or how long those contracts go out, or how long the original contracts were? We've got 7 current NTCs that are full this season. 6 are still full next season. [Binnington's becomes a 15-team NTC.] 4 of those 6 are on defense. Leddy, Krug and Faulk (and Schenn ... and Saad) turn into partials for '25-26, but that's still 2 seasons away and they still have 15-team (16 for Leddy, 12 for Saad) no-trade lists.
The shortest contract we handed out with one was 4 years (Leddy). Saad was 5. Binnington got 6. Faulk and Krug got 7. Parayko and Schenn got 8. Those guys whose NTCs drop to partials in '25-26 are going to be 34 (33 for Faulk) years old. Schenn's contract, where he still has some form of NTC, goes out until 36. So does Parayko. Faulk's goes to 34. Krug's goes to 35. Players are generally on the decline by 32-33; maybe they've got a last hurrah at 35, but for every Ovechkin who has a stellar year at 37 or Selanne who has a stellar year at 40 there's dozens of guys who hit the 33, 34, 35 age mark and drop off badly. If that's going on with any of those guys, they get that much more difficult to move without having to throw in assets as a sweetener - and hoping someone is always desperate and/or stupid is a bad way to go planning for trades.
Pointing to WELL ALL THESE OTHER TEAMS HAVE NTCS TOO11! is as lazy as Rutherford's posting of Kyrou's quote. It has zero context. If you can't be bothered to scratch below the surface, don't get upset when someone else does it. But for a team that's trying torebuildreloadrefocus, if it suddenly needs to become areloadrefocusrebuild - and especially if it needs to happen by moving someone in the top-4 of the defense corps - it gets significantly more difficult when 7 guys, including all 4 of that top-4 that's getting near the "going to start dropping off" mark, hold full control of their future destination during the period of time you probably need to start thatreloadrefocusrebuild.
But if by "pick those cherries" you mean "pointing out the Blues really have 10 contracts with some form of NTC, 7 of which are currently a full NTC," ... that's not picking cherries. That's stating facts.
I cherry-picked ... no, wait - I looked at the other 31 teams, noted 3 who were vaguely close to what the Blues have.Apparently you care since you decided to go cherry pick teams to fit your opinion and now have written a novel about it.
You sound like you should be posting at the asylum…especially with how you started it off with an attempt at insulting me.
Enjoy that nerve I hit. Bye.
nobody in springfield projects as top 4 guy, if that is your question.Do we have any blue chip defensemen downstairs?
Nope. Lindstein and Buchinger are probably the best two. and they seem more 3/4 guys max. Kessel and Loof look to be bottom pairing defenders. Burns may get to 3/4, but, he's very raw and has to learn how to put everything together.Do we have any blue chip defensemen downstairs?
If teams fired the GM every time they made bad move, had bad season, or fans were upset because they lost one of our favorite players, that would be creating recipe for disaster. Teams bottoming out after long successful run and then rebuilding for next run isn't sign GM should be fired, it's sign that you have successful GM that you should keep and support.
The head coach. Duh. The last 3 have had to pay for the organization's sins, his sins, his mistakes.This is Army’s team. If he doesn’t deserve the brunt of responsibility, then who does?
of course he bears responsibility. nobody would deny that. but this rebuild was always going to happen. it's not his fault that guys get old. whether he paid this old guy or that old guy, they woulda still got old. he at least had wisdom to sell off several of them to supercharge our pipeline. and he gave up basically nothing for guys like vrana and kap to try to buy time before the kids are ready. so he is setting us up for the next wave. feel like we owe it to him to allow the next phase of his plan to unfold further before dumping the best gm we ever had.Here’s the thing: Army made several moves to ‘keep the team from crashing’ and most failed because most of those moves were unnecessary. I get replacing folks when they have heart attacks and retire but letting folks walk and spending money on trash are pretty good reasons to take the tinted glasses off and see what’s really there.
This is Army’s team. If he doesn’t deserve the brunt of responsibility, then who does?
Army mismanaged the core we had before our Cup core, then it looked like the Cup core was going to fail after he pulled the coach in waiting fiasco with a bad coach. He was later bailed out to some extent by Berube and Binnington (not to say he didn’t build that roster but Binnington was not part of the plans and his place in the organizational depth chart showed that and Berube was in the AHL). After that cup win (which he deserves some credit for but not an excessive amount), outside of the Buch trade, he has faltered a lot.If teams fired the GM every time they made bad move, had bad season, or fans were upset because they lost one of our favorite players, that would be creating recipe for disaster. Teams bottoming out after long successful run and then rebuilding for next run isn't sign GM should be fired, it's sign that you have successful GM that you should keep and support.
It’s absolutely on him that this rebuild came this quick. It didn’t have to, we could be a much better team today than we currently are. It’s not a situation where it’s like “oh well, nothing he could do about this.” That’s so far from the truth.of course he bears responsibility. nobody would deny that. but this rebuild was always going to happen. it's not his fault that guys get old. whether he paid this old guy or that old guy, they woulda still got old. he at least had wisdom to sell off several of them to supercharge our pipeline. and he gave up basically nothing for guys like vrana and kap to try to buy time before the kids are ready. so he is setting us up for the next wave. feel like we owe it to him to allow the next phase of his plan to unfold further before dumping the best gm we ever had.
Army mismanaged the core we had before our Cup core,
Well the Backes core struggled with two things in the playoffs. Those being goaltending and probably to a greater extent scoring. Army didn’t do much in either area. If he would have fixed either we coul have achieved greater success. Instead he tried for bandaids with our goaltending (which is one of his weakest areas as a GM IMO) and he never really tried to fix our scoring issues.Please explain this one.
On a side note. All of you Petro fan boys that want to cheer for a single player over the entire franchise. What the f*** is your problem? Shouldn't you be happy that Petro got another cup instead of still years later whining that he's not stuck here with a rebuilding team that sucks?
He bailed on last season and got 2 extra 1st round picks rather than chasing an obviously lost season, even though we have plenty of attractive prospects he could have traded in a dumb attempt to make the playoffs. We've also been drafting and developing well despite picking late for nearly his entire tenure. I'd say that's 2 points of evidence that he understands at least some key aspects of building through the draft. I look around the league and I don't see many GMs I'd trust to draft well and to sell rather than buy at the right time.Army mismanaged the core we had before our Cup core, then it looked like the Cup core was going to fail after he pulled the coach in waiting fiasco with a bad coach. He was later bailed out to some extent by Berube and Binnington (not to say he didn’t build that roster but Binnington was not part of the plans and his place in the organizational depth chart showed that and Berube was in the AHL). After that cup win (which he deserves some credit for but not an excessive amount), outside of the Buch trade, he has faltered a lot.
He has kept us competitive for a long time and his MO has been that he can get a team to competitive after that started on an upswing. There is no good evidence IMO that he can do a proper rebuild. It doesn’t mean he cannot, but outside of trading away guys last year, he hasn’t really progressed us forward. Our off-season and last season was pretty underwhelming on the improvement of our short-term and mid-term prospects. Long term trading for extra pick was good, but we still have a ton of higher priced, hard to move, aging contracts and we are no closer to finding a #1D.
TLDR: he hasn’t just made a mistake or two. He has made a mess of them over his time here. Whether there is a better option out there or not, I am not sure. I think there is an argument that there is cause for moving on.
100%. I fear that logic and making sense is lost on the anti-army crowd though. They have their pitchforks and red hats and won’t stop until they seize power.He bailed on last season and got 2 extra 1st round picks rather than chasing an obviously lost season, even though we have plenty of attractive prospects he could have traded in a dumb attempt to make the playoffs. We've also been drafting and developing well despite picking late for nearly his entire tenure. I'd say that's 2 points of evidence that he understands at least some key aspects of building through the draft. I look around the league and I don't see many GMs I'd trust to draft well and to sell rather than buy at the right time.
Fair point. I can agree with that.He bailed on last season and got 2 extra 1st round picks rather than chasing an obviously lost season, even though we have plenty of attractive prospects he could have traded in a dumb attempt to make the playoffs. We've also been drafting and developing well despite picking late for nearly his entire tenure. I'd say that's 2 points of evidence that he understands at least some key aspects of building through the draft. I look around the league and I don't see many GMs I'd trust to draft well and to sell rather than buy at the right time.