OT: Should Doug Armstrong get fired?

[Majorityof1]

I’m not sure if we have accrued every piece we need to be successful, things happen. But between our roster and pipeline there’s 2 possible holes with a few possible solutions.

2C - obviously a pretty big hole evidenced this year already. The hope is Dvorsky can fill that hole and honestly he’s looked really good in the early stages of his career. He could falter, but that’s also a hole we can address when the time is right if needed - I.e. ROR trade etc.

#1D this is the riskiest area that we may not have the solution too. I could pump up Jiricek and Lindstein all I want to, but realistically the chances of them becoming a 1D certainly isn’t definite. But then we need to also ask, is Broberg an option there - maybe, still not too guaranteed. But aside from DuPont I’m not sure there is a gauranteed 1D in a draft. Schaefer looks really good and could possibly track there and if he does and goes after pick 5, sure there’s a miss there. But if venture to guess anyone else in this class and future classes probably have the same odds this early in a development stage as a Lindstein/Jiricek/Broberg. We have a lot of options on defense in our pipeline and I’d be willing to bet we select another one and/or acquire one sometime in the next 2 years that tracks there. Lindstein/Jiricek/Ralph/Fischer all look to be pretty good prospects. I’m not sure if one of them or Broberg will rise to the occasion or not. I’d agree with the sentiment of we need some of them to overachieve draft position, or just one of them - minus Broberg.

What I meant by forgoing the development stage is essentially the development of guys already at the NHL level. There’s alot more to development of a professional athlete than talent. It’s a really good thing to have vets around who have experience of winning and experience of what it’s like day to day to help guys out.

A plan of winning is also a much better environment for younger players. There’s nothing more derailing (than injury) to becoming more consistent than your consistent being not good enough. I’m sure this doesn’t apply to the McDavids and Crosbys of the world, but they’re also extremely special talents. It’s hard to imagine throwing together 8 young guys with little direction has a chance of success in any industry. Look at Buffalo, and Montreal. Those are long hard rebuilds that aren’t guaranteed to work out. There’s no foundation there. I’d much rather make sure we have a foundation built when we have a position filled that’s as hard to fill as 1C as opposed to rotting Thomas/Kyrou for a more prolonged period of time.

People always point out the teams that tank, and don't work out. But it's hard to win the cup. 1 team a year does. Over 2/3rds of the league won't in any given decade. So the fact that Buffalo and Montreal have not done it right does not mean it won't work. You say a team needs direction, isn't that the role of the coach? To teach the kids the right way, even if there us not enough talent to win.

Thousands of students study really hard and apply, but do not get full academic scholarships to Harvard. Does the mean the path to a full academic scholarship to Harvard is to goof-off and not apply? No, it means getting a full academic ride to Harvard, and winning a Stanley Cup is tough.

What we do know is that it takes elite talent to win the cup. If you don't want to tank for it, fine. But you need a plan to get it. Getting good but not elite talent and immersing it in a culture of mediocrity isn't the answer either. For every Buffalo you name, I can name a Minnessotta as well.

 

[BleedBlue14]

People always point out the teams that tank, and don't work out. But it's hard to win the cup. 1 team a year does. Over 2/3rds of the league won't in any given decade. So the fact that Buffalo and Montreal have not done it right does not mean it won't work. You say a team needs direction, isn't that the role of the coach? To teach the kids the right way, even if there us not enough talent to win.

Thousands of students study really hard and apply, but do not get full academic scholarships to Harvard. Does the mean the path to a full academic scholarship to Harvard is to goof-off and not apply? No, it means getting a full academic ride to Harvard, and winning a Stanley Cup is tough.

What we do know is that it takes elite talent to win the cup. If you don't want to tank for it, fine. But you need a plan to get it. Getting good but not elite talent and immersing it in a culture of mediocrity isn't the answer either. For every Buffalo you name, I can name a Minnessotta as well.

There’s a different relationship to what a coach can teach, and what players learn from colleagues. It’s just a completely different voice, and you need a good mix of both.

I don’t fully understand the Harvard comment. I don’t disagree winning the cup is hard. I never said it wasn’t.

Minnesota currently is one of the few situations you can point to currently and say they have elite talent without tanking.

 

[Majorityof1]

There’s a different relationship to what a coach can teach, and what players learn from colleagues. It’s just a completely different voice, and you need a good mix of both.

I don’t fully understand the Harvard comment. I don’t disagree winning the cup is hard. I never said it wasn’t.

Minnesota currently is one of the few situations you can point to currently and say they have elite talent without tanking.

The Harvard comment means that when something is difficult, something few people do, you can't point to the failures as an example of how not to do it. Another way to say it is that correlation is not causation. Montreal and Buffalo both may gave tanked to get elite talent. And they both may be struggling to get out of the cellar. That is a correllation, but their tanking didn't necessarily cause their being stuck in the cellar. Their inept management did.

We have players who have won and can be mentors. What can Fowler who has never won teach that Schenn and Parayko can't?

 

[Ranksu]

Trades like the Fowler trade will be the reason this franchise stays in a rebuild longer than needed.

He should be collecting as much draft capital and cap space as possible to make moves at the draft and to cuck other teams up against the cap on younger players. Instead we keep handing out our picks for aging vets past their primes which prevents us from doing so.

If you want to make a trade Army, get rid of the god awful contracts you signed.

All I have to say how and what Army is doing it eventually forces who is in charge --> Steen make handcuffed and hard decisions.

Full rebuild and fire sale.

There is causal connection for every move you make.

Its damn hard to watch your favourite team crumble for cup contender to bubble team and at the end laughing stock.

 

[BrokenFace]

All I have to say how and what Army is doing it eventually forces who is in charge --> Steen make handcuffed and hard decisions.

Full rebuild and fire sale.

There is causal connection for every move you make.

Its damn hard to watch your favourite team crumble for cup contender to bubble team and at the end laughing stock.

Every single team that was a cup contender in the salary cap era eventually had to be crappy for a while. What GM would you hire who would avoid this? Also, most GMs take over bad and/or aging teams with a hollowed out prospect pool. It's looking like Steen will be taking over a much healthier organization than the vast majority of GMs.

 

[Ranksu]

Every single team that was a cup contender in the salary cap era eventually had to be crappy for a while. What GM would you hire who would avoid this? Also, most GMs take over bad and/or aging teams with a hollowed out prospect pool. It's looking like Steen will be taking over a much healthier organization than the vast majority of GMs.

I cant name anything good move Army after Cup run. Everything went south after Pietro was walking for nothing. It was most idiotic thing you can do as a GM. Key player whom around team was build.


Could be we will never see franchise player like Pietro was.

 

[Celtic Note]

I’m not sure if we have accrued every piece we need to be successful, things happen. But between our roster and pipeline there’s 2 possible holes with a few possible solutions.

2C - obviously a pretty big hole evidenced this year already. The hope is Dvorsky can fill that hole and honestly he’s looked really good in the early stages of his career. He could falter, but that’s also a hole we can address when the time is right if needed - I.e. ROR trade etc.

#1D this is the riskiest area that we may not have the solution too. I could pump up Jiricek and Lindstein all I want to, but realistically the chances of them becoming a 1D certainly isn’t definite. But then we need to also ask, is Broberg an option there - maybe, still not too guaranteed. But aside from DuPont I’m not sure there is a gauranteed 1D in a draft. Schaefer looks really good and could possibly track there and if he does and goes after pick 5, sure there’s a miss there. But if venture to guess anyone else in this class and future classes probably have the same odds this early in a development stage as a Lindstein/Jiricek/Broberg. We have a lot of options on defense in our pipeline and I’d be willing to bet we select another one and/or acquire one sometime in the next 2 years that tracks there. Lindstein/Jiricek/Ralph/Fischer all look to be pretty good prospects. I’m not sure if one of them or Broberg will rise to the occasion or not. I’d agree with the sentiment of we need some of them to overachieve draft position, or just one of them - minus Broberg.

What I meant by forgoing the development stage is essentially the development of guys already at the NHL level. There’s alot more to development of a professional athlete than talent. It’s a really good thing to have vets around who have experience of winning and experience of what it’s like day to day to help guys out.

A plan of winning is also a much better environment for younger players. There’s nothing more derailing (than injury) to becoming more consistent than your consistent being not good enough. I’m sure this doesn’t apply to the McDavids and Crosbys of the world, but they’re also extremely special talents. It’s hard to imagine throwing together 8 young guys with little direction has a chance of success in any industry. Look at Buffalo, and Montreal. Those are long hard rebuilds that aren’t guaranteed to work out. There’s no foundation there. I’d much rather make sure we have a foundation built when we have a position filled that’s as hard to fill as 1C as opposed to rotting Thomas/Kyrou for a more prolonged period of time.

Buffalo and Montreal have been run like disasters. In what ways are the Blues likely to become them? I see an incredible amount of dissimilarities the similarities. I personally feel like these are some of the worst possible examples that we could become.

And I am really not following the foundation discussion. Did the Hawks, Penguins, Aves and Lightening have foundations before they bottomed out?

I feel like this losing culture fear is way overblown.

 

[HighNote]

I cant name anything good move Army after Cup run. Everything went south after Pietro was walking for nothing. It was most idiotic thing you can do as a GM. Key player whom around team was build.


Could be we will never see franchise player like Pietro was.

Dang, not one thing?

I've liked these trades:

Traded 7th round picks with TOR for the pick that became Zherenko
Edmundson, Bokk and a 7th for Faulk and a 5th
Blais + a 2nd for Buchnevich
Husso for the 3rd rounder that became Kaskimaki

---No longer a contender---

O'Reilly + Acciari for Gaudette, Abramov and the picks that became Stenberg, Pekarcik, and L. Fischer
2nd + 3rd for Holloway and Broberg