Confirmed with Link: Steen to be GM in 2026

[STL fan in MN]

Im so happy. Best news in long time. Army out.

Army got a 3 year extension…

 

[Spektre]

It was a weird interview.

Army, I could be a manager for another decade

Army, it’s time for another voice

Meanwhile Steen has next to no management experience..

Just weird

 

[Xerloris]

It was a weird interview.

Army, I could be a manager for another decade

Army, it’s time for another voice

Meanwhile Steen has next to no management experience..

Just weird

We're clearly underestimating the blackmail videos Steener has from the cup parties.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

FANTASTIC NEWS

Sports is just a sector of entertainment. I'm looking forward to what comes next in this show.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Alex, first order of business, bring back DP57.

 

[Ranksu]

Army got a 3 year extension…

But he IS out soon.

 

[Celtic Note]

I can't imagine someone being unhappy about the Steen GM news or disapproving of this announcement and future direction of management leadership. Steen has hockey family pedigree, his hockey IQ is outstanding, he is excellent at accessing talent and having been around lots of players can ascertain the underlying makeup of players. He has lots of contacts and relationships already built with other hockey players now shifting into management roles and I don't think anyone can question his drive and love of the Blues organization overall. What's not to like?

When I hire someone to work for me, I always look at the potential the person has to perform the job I need them for not necessarily that they currently have all the tools at their disposal to do that job. No matter the position, there is always a 3-6 month learning curve you have to account for. It doesn't surprise me at all that Steen was picked for the reasons listed above. And I'm quite relieved that they will be easing him in and training him over 2 years for the job they want him to perform. Not everyone gets this opportunity. This takes all the pressure off of Steen to immediately perform and gives him a leg up in decision making that can set him up for success in the future. I love it.

I can see why someone would be unhappy with the announcement. Is it really that hard to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and see things from another vantage? I am sure there are plenty of valid reasons someone would have for not liking this move. One I could see is experience. If you were hoping to get an accomplished GM, Steen isn’t that. I won’t go into other reasons I could see others having, as I am sure they will be voiced by those having those thoughts.

I am going to preface my assessment of this hockey ops strategy with the fact that I liked Steen as a player.

I personally don’t put a ton of stock in family pedigree. What does it actually mean to the position and the accompanying job functions? There may be some befits of having seen how other hockey operations run. Yet, Steen himself admits that hockey players are relatively “in a bubble” in regards to the inner workings of hockey ops. So while there was likely more there for him to learn than the average player, was it focused on playing or managing? It’s sounds like his dad’s tenure in management was short lived based on his words in the interview. I am sure there were some learnings there, but how much? And, we’re they the right lessons? Were those lessons worth more than being a GM with lived experience? Hard to say exactly as everyone’s experiences are different. The TLDR take away for me is how much stock do we really need to put into that?

Similarly, hockey IQ is something Steen exhibited as a player, but I question if there is a direct translation. Does he understand how to play the game and that’s as far as his hockey IQ extends or is he just a very intelligent hockey mind that can learn every facet of managing a club? Wayne Gretzky was one of the smartest hockey players we have seen, but his hockey IQ didn’t translate into coaching. Why? There are clearly skills and knowledge outside of the on ice knowledge that matters. I am not sure we have any concrete evidence of substance on Steen that can tell us if his on ice IQ with translate to off ice. He does seem like he is someone with a thirst for knowledge, so that bodes well, in addition to the fact that he is driven. I see potential there and I like seeing that, but potential doesn’t mean much if it’s not realized. I would personally like to see that before preannouncing someone as next GM.

Do we know that Steen is excellent at assessing talent? I am trying to remember examples of when he has exhibited those capabilities? Wasn’t he the one who lobbied for Lindstrom? That’s not exactly a great example on the plus side of the column.

I think some have suggested his involvement in our recent Swedish prospect suggestions, but other than being Swedish and having a role with the club, do we know he is the one that championed Sternberg and Lindstein? If he was a critical reason why they were selected then that seems pretty positive, as I personally think both were good selections, but it’s unfortunately going to be a while before we see if that is actually true. I would lean towards it being positive based on what we know today, assuming he was critical to their selections.

Are there any other examples we can use as a source of information in evaluating his player assessment capabilities?


“When I hire someone to work for me, I always look at the potential the person has to perform the job I need them for not necessarily that they currently have all the tools at their disposal to do that job.”

Agreed. You don’t need all the tools, but you do have to have enough of a foundation to be able to evolve into that role. My question with Steen revolves around does he have enough of those tools? If he had any real managerial or hockey ops experience, I feel like we would at least have something to go off of and we would know he has some base knowledge.

At this point most of our positive evaluations of him seem to be based on broad projections of who he was as a player translating into managerial and visionary skills, in addition to beliefs in him as a person.

I do like that we are succession planning, as I think it is critical for any organization to do so. I don’t think it’s a particularly great strategy to pre anoint people who have virtually no experience into top positions in organizations however. It seems rushed, I am not sure it’s a great message internally and it seems strange to put a timeline on it. What happens if Steen needs 3 or 5 years to acclimate? What if he doesn’t seem like he is putting it all together or wants to go a different direction as he learns more about what the role really entails? What if someone better comes along that would be a better fit for where we are and where we want to go as an organization?

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of giving him time to mature into the role. I like that we are succession planning. I am not sure I am sold on Steen being the guy do to a lack of directly relatable experience (though I hope for his and our sake that he is).

 

[bleedblue1223]

The one thing I'm curious about is how does Army handle the transition from his remaining time as GM to Steen's. I think it's clear that we now have a timeline for when Army sees a re-whatever ending. I don't see Army making any major long-term commitments, at least not with Steen being on board with it. Are we punting these next 2 years, does Army want to give Steen some better NHL level players to work with or more cap space and a better prospect pool?

On some level, if they knew this was the plan, and 26/27 sort of marks a turning of the page, I wish we were more aggressive on selling some pieces, and hope we are this summer. We don't need to fully tear it down, but lets get as many picks and prospects now that we can, so that they will start to be NHL ready in the early years of Steen.

 

[joe galiba]

My first thought was this sounds familiar, then I remembered the Hitch-Yeo connection.

Hitch-Yeo sounds like a Japanese Manga series

 

[Majorityof1]

I can see why someone would be unhappy with the announcement. Is it really that hard to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and see things from another vantage? I am sure there are plenty of valid reasons someone would have for not liking this move. One I could see is experience. If you were hoping to get an accomplished GM, Steen isn’t that. I won’t go into other reasons I could see others having, as I am sure they will be voiced by those having those thoughts.

I am going to preface my assessment of this hockey ops strategy with the fact that I liked Steen as a player.

I personally don’t put a ton of stock in family pedigree. What does it actually mean to the position and the accompanying job functions? There may be some befits of having seen how other hockey operations run. Yet, Steen himself admits that hockey players are relatively “in a bubble” in regards to the inner workings of hockey ops. So while there was likely more there for him to learn than the average player, was it focused on playing or managing? It’s sounds like his dad’s tenure in management was short lived based on his words in the interview. I am sure there were some learnings there, but how much? And, we’re they the right lessons? Were those lessons worth more than being a GM with lived experience? Hard to say exactly as everyone’s experiences are different. The TLDR take away for me is how much stock do we really need to put into that?

Similarly, hockey IQ is something Steen exhibited as a player, but I question if there is a direct translation. Does he understand how to play the game and that’s as far as his hockey IQ extends or is he just a very intelligent hockey mind that can learn every facet of managing a club? Wayne Gretzky was one of the smartest hockey players we have seen, but his hockey IQ didn’t translate into coaching. Why? There are clearly skills and knowledge outside of the on ice knowledge that matters. I am not sure we have any concrete evidence of substance on Steen that can tell us if his on ice IQ with translate to off ice. He does seem like he is someone with a thirst for knowledge, so that bodes well, in addition to the fact that he is driven. I see potential there and I like seeing that, but potential doesn’t mean much if it’s not realized. I would personally like to see that before preannouncing someone as next GM.

Do we know that Steen is excellent at assessing talent? I am trying to remember examples of when he has exhibited those capabilities? Wasn’t he the one who lobbied for Lindstrom? That’s not exactly a great example on the plus side of the column.

I think some have suggested his involvement in our recent Swedish prospect suggestions, but other than being Swedish and having a role with the club, do we know he is the one that championed Sternberg and Lindstein? If he was a critical reason why they were selected then that seems pretty positive, as I personally think both were good selections, but it’s unfortunately going to be a while before we see if that is actually true. I would lean towards it being positive based on what we know today, assuming he was critical to their selections.

Are there any other examples we can use as a source of information in evaluating his player assessment capabilities?


“When I hire someone to work for me, I always look at the potential the person has to perform the job I need them for not necessarily that they currently have all the tools at their disposal to do that job.”

Agreed. You don’t need all the tools, but you do have to have enough of a foundation to be able to evolve into that role. My question with Steen revolves around does he have enough of those tools? If he had any real managerial or hockey ops experience, I feel like we would at least have something to go off of and we would know he has some base knowledge.

At this point most of our positive evaluations of him seem to be based on broad projections of who he was as a player translating into managerial and visionary skills, in addition to beliefs in him as a person.

I do like that we are succession planning, as I think it is critical for any organization to do so. I don’t think it’s a particularly great strategy to pre anoint people who have virtually no experience into top positions in organizations however. It seems rushed, I am not sure it’s a great message internally and it seems strange to put a timeline on it. What happens if Steen needs 3 or 5 years to acclimate? What if he doesn’t seem like he is putting it all together or wants to go a different direction as he learns more about what the role really entails? What if someone better comes along that would be a better fit for where we are and where we want to go as an organization?

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of giving him time to mature into the role. I like that we are succession planning. I am not sure I am sold on Steen being the guy do to a lack of directly relatable experience (though I hope for his and our sake that he is).

This is extremely well written and puts so many of my thoughts into word.

I listened to the press conference and it alleviated some of my concerns. I'm glad they have a plan to train him in areas he is weak. I'm glad they gave a plan to potentially transition Army out, so Steen's not just a puppet GM. I'm glad Army will be there for next 5 years which are critical to the franchise as opposed to having Steen alone in 2 years

That said, I agree with Celtic's concerns wholeheartedly. Steen is inexperienced. All the positives people are sighting do nit gurantee success like experience and success does. There was no reason to announce it or time table it like they did.

I truly do think people are blinded by his time here as a player. That's fine. It's fine to be excited by his potential. But I don't get how somene can completely ignore the criticism of his lack of experience.

 

[MissouriMook]

For those who are worried about Steen having the right attributes but lacking experience, it might help to think of this in the context of developing an elite defensive prospect. If they threw him into that role now, he would potentially get eaten alive because of his lack of experience. They are giving him two years to develop under Army, then allowing him to take on the toughest assignments in year three while they still have an experienced veteran to partner him with.

For any leadership role, you always hire for the attributes that are hardest to learn and lean far less on things that can be more easily learned on the job.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

But he IS out soon.

5-6 years is soon?

 

[Thallis]

For those who are worried about Steen having the right attributes but lacking experience, it might help to think of this in the context of developing an elite defensive prospect. If they threw him into that role now, he would potentially get eaten alive because of his lack of experience. They are giving him two years to develop under Army, then allowing him to take on the toughest assignments in year three while they still have an experienced veteran to partner him with.

For any leadership role, you always hire for the attributes that are hardest to learn and lean far less on things that can be more easily learned on the job.

Usually you wait until the prospect is ready to take on a larger role before you promote them to #1, not announce that they'll be that 2 years ahead of time

 

[Ranksu]

5-6 years is soon?

I did understand he IS out 2 years and Steen Will take controll GM.

 

[Majorityof1]

For those who are worried about Steen having the right attributes but lacking experience, it might help to think of this in the context of developing an elite defensive prospect. If they threw him into that role now, he would potentially get eaten alive because of his lack of experience. They are giving him two years to develop under Army, then allowing him to take on the toughest assignments in year three while they still have an experienced veteran to partner him with.

For any leadership role, you always hire for the attributes that are hardest to learn and lean far less on things that can be more easily learned on the job.

Except this is nothing like that at all. That defenseman has been playing hockey all his life, maybe at a different level but it's the same game. And as Thallis pointed out, you still don't announce he'll be your 1D years early and set a time table on it. Nobody has an issue bringing Steen in and grooming him. It's the quick time table and announced transition.

You do not in business take a guy who shows leadership on the factory floor in a blue collar job and peg him to be CEO in 2 years

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's not that people are blinded by his time as a player, it's that we have faith in Army and others that have identified Steen as someone that would be successful in this role. Now some former players have varying degrees of prior experience before getting a GM role, but this is also the current trend in the league, where younger former players are getting these roles. We'll see how it plays out for these teams in the future, but I do think it's more than just leaning on nostalgia of having a former player.

While it would've been nice for Steen to have some AGM years under him, he's still going to have Army above him for at least a few years. We have a cap guy and player personnel guy under him. We aren't throwing him to the wolves where he has to handle all contract negotiations and things like that. While Steen will have his own style, I suspect it'll be someone similar to Army's in the sense that we won't have dramatic shifts in scouting, in development, or even style of play. I'll be curious what his views are on free agency, trades, contracts, clauses, asset management, etc.

To me, if we use a business example, the organization identified someone mid-management level that has high upside and wants to put them on the path to being the future CEO/CFO. It's a calculated risk, but taking steps to make the transition as successful as possible.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I am curious how we handle some of the decisions that blend the short and long term impacts. Buchnevich is the major one. Do we want him for the short-term because of his quality, or do we want to give Steen's as clean of a start possible in regards to contract and age situation of the roster he gets. I think Buch is 100% traded if he's looking for a 6+ year deal. I don't think it's a coincidence that Steen will be taking over when guys like Saad and Hayes are gone, and Krug and Faulk are either gone or almost gone. I don't see Army wanting to give Steen another potentially problematic contract.

I don't expect us to be active in acquiring long-term pieces, unless it's just a no-brainer opportunity. I don't see us being active in free agency. And I do think this is the move that Stillman sort of hinted at in his interview with JR by saying interesting things were already happening. People at the time then started thinking Brady or other major player related moves, but I think this is what he actually meant.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I did understand he IS out 2 years and Steen Will take controll GM.

He's still President of Hockey Operations until 2029 he's still in charge. Any decision Steen Makes HAS to be approved by Armstrong. He's not out at all.

 

[BlueDream]

This is extremely well written and puts so many of my thoughts into word.

I listened to the press conference and it alleviated some of my concerns. I'm glad they have a plan to train him in areas he is weak. I'm glad they gave a plan to potentially transition Army out, so Steen's not just a puppet GM. I'm glad Army will be there for next 5 years which are critical to the franchise as opposed to having Steen alone in 2 years

That said, I agree with Celtic's concerns wholeheartedly. Steen is inexperienced. All the positives people are sighting do nit gurantee success like experience and success does. There was no reason to announce it or time table it like they did.

I truly do think people are blinded by his time here as a player. That's fine. It's fine to be excited by his potential. But I don't get how somene can completely ignore the criticism of his lack of experience.

Why is experience the end all, be all? That doesn’t guarantee success either.

Obviously it can help but I don’t understand why you’re acting like it’s the only thing that matters. Armstrong has a shit ton of experience and half this board is tired of him. So why do we have to bring in another veteran guy like that? Maybe it’s time for a younger, fresher voice - and I think that’s what people are accepting. It’s not that we’re just blindly supporting something.

I look around the NHL right now and I see a handful of former players and younger GMs that have stepped into those roles and done fine. So it’s going to be our turn to try it. I’m not afraid of that.

 

[Ranksu]

He's still President of Hockey Operations until 2029 he's still in charge. Any decision Steen Makes HAS to be approved by Armstrong. He's not out at all.

Damn. I feel like this girl/woman/man/cat or whatever they are nowadays.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Usually you wait until the prospect is ready to take on a larger role before you promote them to #1, not announce that they'll be that 2 years ahead of time

If you draft Celebrini, you are expecting him to grow into 1c role. You plan for him to grow into that role over next couple years, supporting him, teaching him, and surrounding him with pieces he will need to blossom. That is similar to what we are doing. We think Steen has all the attributes needed to be a great GM and with care and feeding he will be that. So he is going to be involved in everything over next 2 years with Army still in charge and then Steen takes over but will have Army there still to guide and support him.

If we thought we as organization was broken and wanted to build it from scratch, I don’t think this is right plan. But if we think our scouting and development departments are strong (and I basically do), then seems like great succession plan to me.

 

[Reality Czech]

Why is experience the end all, be all? That doesn’t guarantee success either.

Obviously it can help but I don’t understand why you’re acting like it’s the only thing that matters. Armstrong has a shit ton of experience and half this board is tired of him. So why do we have to bring in another veteran guy like that? Maybe it’s time for a younger, fresher voice - and I think that’s what people are accepting. It’s not that we’re just blindly supporting something.

I look around the NHL right now and I see a handful of former players and younger GMs that have stepped into those roles and done fine. So it’s going to be our turn to try it. I’m not afraid of that.

Hire a coach or GM with experience, people will say the old boys club is alive and well. Hire a new face and people will say they should have hired someone with more experience. Some people will always find something to complain about.

Personally I think it's pretty cool that Steen will have a big role with the team going forward. Obviously it's ok with Stillman, who I'm guessing wants his team to be successful. Not sure I agree with basically giving him the job two years in advance but I'm guessing it's not set in stone if either side changes their mind. Players will probably like working for a guy who was one of them not do long ago and Steen will understand the players side well, too.

For the people who don't like this hire, who would you prefer instead?

 

[LogosBlue]

I can see why someone would be unhappy with the announcement. Is it really that hard to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and see things from another vantage? I am sure there are plenty of valid reasons someone would have for not liking this move. One I could see is experience. If you were hoping to get an accomplished GM, Steen isn’t that. I won’t go into other reasons I could see others having, as I am sure they will be voiced by those having those thoughts.

I am going to preface my assessment of this hockey ops strategy with the fact that I liked Steen as a player.

I personally don’t put a ton of stock in family pedigree. What does it actually mean to the position and the accompanying job functions? There may be some befits of having seen how other hockey operations run. Yet, Steen himself admits that hockey players are relatively “in a bubble” in regards to the inner workings of hockey ops. So while there was likely more there for him to learn than the average player, was it focused on playing or managing? It’s sounds like his dad’s tenure in management was short lived based on his words in the interview. I am sure there were some learnings there, but how much? And, we’re they the right lessons? Were those lessons worth more than being a GM with lived experience? Hard to say exactly as everyone’s experiences are different. The TLDR take away for me is how much stock do we really need to put into that?

Similarly, hockey IQ is something Steen exhibited as a player, but I question if there is a direct translation. Does he understand how to play the game and that’s as far as his hockey IQ extends or is he just a very intelligent hockey mind that can learn every facet of managing a club? Wayne Gretzky was one of the smartest hockey players we have seen, but his hockey IQ didn’t translate into coaching. Why? There are clearly skills and knowledge outside of the on ice knowledge that matters. I am not sure we have any concrete evidence of substance on Steen that can tell us if his on ice IQ with translate to off ice. He does seem like he is someone with a thirst for knowledge, so that bodes well, in addition to the fact that he is driven. I see potential there and I like seeing that, but potential doesn’t mean much if it’s not realized. I would personally like to see that before preannouncing someone as next GM.

Do we know that Steen is excellent at assessing talent? I am trying to remember examples of when he has exhibited those capabilities? Wasn’t he the one who lobbied for Lindstrom? That’s not exactly a great example on the plus side of the column.

I think some have suggested his involvement in our recent Swedish prospect suggestions, but other than being Swedish and having a role with the club, do we know he is the one that championed Sternberg and Lindstein? If he was a critical reason why they were selected then that seems pretty positive, as I personally think both were good selections, but it’s unfortunately going to be a while before we see if that is actually true. I would lean towards it being positive based on what we know today, assuming he was critical to their selections.

Are there any other examples we can use as a source of information in evaluating his player assessment capabilities?


“When I hire someone to work for me, I always look at the potential the person has to perform the job I need them for not necessarily that they currently have all the tools at their disposal to do that job.”

Agreed. You don’t need all the tools, but you do have to have enough of a foundation to be able to evolve into that role. My question with Steen revolves around does he have enough of those tools? If he had any real managerial or hockey ops experience, I feel like we would at least have something to go off of and we would know he has some base knowledge.

At this point most of our positive evaluations of him seem to be based on broad projections of who he was as a player translating into managerial and visionary skills, in addition to beliefs in him as a person.

I do like that we are succession planning, as I think it is critical for any organization to do so. I don’t think it’s a particularly great strategy to pre anoint people who have virtually no experience into top positions in organizations however. It seems rushed, I am not sure it’s a great message internally and it seems strange to put a timeline on it. What happens if Steen needs 3 or 5 years to acclimate? What if he doesn’t seem like he is putting it all together or wants to go a different direction as he learns more about what the role really entails? What if someone better comes along that would be a better fit for where we are and where we want to go as an organization?

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of giving him time to mature into the role. I like that we are succession planning. I am not sure I am sold on Steen being the guy do to a lack of directly relatable experience (though I hope for his and our sake that he is).

I can understand your hesitation to fully embrace this move, I guess. The thing is, you never have experience until you have experience. You pick someone who has the background, ability and drive to undertake the required learning and execution of duty required for the position and you teach them the things they don't know and run them through the process until they understand and are ready to take the reins themselves. That's all that's going on here and DA and the ownership group have determined that they have full faith and confidence that Steen is that guy.

No one really knows if someone will succeed in a new area of work / life until they are thrown into it. A great example comes from my younger years where I was a very good engineering design guy and really good at communicating to people and talking through concepts and ideas and drafting from concept to reality. Someone in management thought it would be a good idea to make me a sale engineer and fly me all over the country to sell our product. lol. They couldn't have been more wrong!! A salesman, I am not. I had all the right attributes for what they wanted me to do but it didn't work at all.

All this being said, you never really know but I believe Steen can grow into a GM and it seems so does the front office. Lots of players have taken this path in the past. Some have met with success and some not so much. For every Wayne Gretsky you can name, I can give you a Steve Y. It's that simple. I 100% support giving Steener a try.

 

[SirPaste]

But he IS out soon.

his contract runs for another 5 seasons, then will be determined

 

[Brian39]

I still need to listen to the press conference but I don't like this, bordering on hating it.

1) Steen has zero experience, why give him the job now? Bring him in as AGM, and see how he does. Seems very premature.
...
3) Did we consider anyone else? Seems like we are fast tracking Steen with blinders on. I'd like a much more thorough search for Army's successor.

I understand and don't fully disagree with your opinion on the hiring/announcement. However, I think that you are ignoring/downplaying how his ties to the organization allowed the existing front office to evaluate his ability to do this job.

Being GM of a team involves a huge amount of soft skills. I think that 'hockey intelligence' is the biggest asset a GM must have. But after that, I think that soft skills are the next most important assets for the job.

Steen has worked for or with Army and Stillman for about 15 years. They met Steen when he was a 24 year old man and he is now 40. He was part of the team's leadership group and it is pretty clear that the front office remained in close contact with him as he transitioned from his playing career to the next step. Army and Stillman know who Alex Steen is as a person and a professional as well as you can know a job candidate.

They have had 15 years to learn and evaluate Steen's hockey intelligence and his soft skills.

For people happy about this, how would you feel if it was not Alex Steen but some no name player who was super smart with just less talent. If the resume was, he washed out of the NHL quickly, played in Europe, retired, scouted for a year and then was named AGM/GM in waiting. I think many are blinded by Steen's name and skill as a player.

We know much more about Steen beyond his name and skill than we would know about this hypothetical player. The organization knows Steen's hockey intelligence and his soft skills a hell of a lot better than they would know this hypothetical player. You learn a hell of a lot more about people in your organization for 15 years than the info you get from talking to people you know who employed a job candidate.

Again, I don't fully disagree with your lack of excitement. As much as I believe that Steen will make a great GM and trust our organization's assessment of him for the role, I'm not wild about locking into a succession plan publicly. But I don't think it is fair to act like his 12 years in the organization as a player are irrelevant to the decision beyond being lip service to fans. I think you can learn a hell of a lot about a guy's potential as a hockey executive by employing him as a player.