Confirmed with Link: Suter signs 1 year

[ezcreepin]

The bolded is false. Logical thinking involves "logically, we want to contend for the championship, how do we get players that help us do that." You are defining "logic" as "we have to do SOMETHING" and my entire point is that people who think "we have to do SOMETHING" are so wretchedly inept in their hockey judgment that it crippled the franchise. You saying that you would have done the same thing is not an argument that it's logical. It's a confession that you would have been forced into equally bad judgment. "In no way would I have held my mud either."

The only other argument you have is to say that the Blues should have traded for either Martinez or Skjei, which there might be merit there. If you want to improve the left side, you could've traded a prospect or another pick to get Martinez since you gave up a 2nd for Scandella. I'm not sure what Doug thought about the construction at that time, but Skjei was had for a 1st, so I guess we could've done that if we thought we had good odds to win again.

My point is that Armstrong obviously had a plan with the acquisition of Faulk. Whether it was trade Parayko or let Petro walk, there was no world where you have a right side of Petro, Parayko, and Faulk, especially after Bouw had to retire. You had to put someone on the left who could do at least half the job that Bouw did (Army thought Scandella), and you had to replace offense left by Petro (or in another world Parayko or Faulk). That only leaves one defenseman who can reasonably put up 40 points and play in a top 4 role, which was Krug. Aside from a random trade we can't think of right now, that is the logic that is inferred just based on all the information we know right now.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Sheesh you'd think we'd just signed Nail Yakupov to a 5x5 with this reaction. Throwing up in your mouth over a 1 year league minimum contract for a guy who was clearly a top 4 D (At least until they got Tanev) on a Conference Finals team? Get a grip folks.

I think this signing is fine. All the hand-wringing over the fact that it's 1-way, remember this isn't NHL24. 1-way just means you get paid the same in the NHL as the AHL. If Suter sucks, we send him to the AHL and all that happens is Tom Stillman loses a bit more money. I look at this like a training camp invitee. If he comes in and plays well, then great, if not, then we send him packing or look to trade him for the increasingly popular and possible hidden gem Future Considerations (I hear that kid has a ton of upside, but needs more time to marinate.)

Suter was a solid contributor last year. I'd 100% trust him in a top 4 role over Krug, that's for damn sure. He also replaces, nay I daresay improves, the PK over what we were getting from Krug and Scandella.

Overall it's a buy low move that can help us stay in contention for the playoffs. We can argue if that's the right move for this year or not, but it's been pretty clear for the last year or so that Army is going to continue pushing to make the playoffs, even if that's to the detriment of the long-term future of our organization. Am I a bit concerned over the personality stuff? Yea, maybe a bit. But I also think a guy who's been bought out twice and is now playing on a leage minimum contract he signed 10 days after UFA started might stfu a bit.

 

[simon IC]

The only other argument you have is to say that the Blues should have traded for either Martinez or Skjei, which there might be merit there. If you want to improve the left side, you could've traded a prospect or another pick to get Martinez since you gave up a 2nd for Scandella. I'm not sure what Doug thought about the construction at that time, but Skjei was had for a 1st, so I guess we could've done that if we thought we had good odds to win again.

My point is that Armstrong obviously had a plan with the acquisition of Faulk. Whether it was trade Parayko or let Petro walk, there was no world where you have a right side of Petro, Parayko, and Faulk, especially after Bouw had to retire. You had to put someone on the left who could do at least half the job that Bouw did (Army thought Scandella), and you had to replace offense left by Petro (or in another world Parayko or Faulk). That only leaves one defenseman who can reasonably put up 40 points and play in a top 4 role, which was Krug. Aside from a random trade we can't think of right now, that is the logic that is inferred just based on all the information we know right now.

I disagreed at the time, and I disagree still. We could have just promoted Dunn and signed a 3rd pairing guy. We were not in a position where we had to do something.

 

[ezcreepin]

I disagreed at the time, and I disagree still. We could have just promoted Dunn and signed a 3rd pairing guy. We were not in a position where we had to do something.

My argument isn't that it was a good decision. Clearly it wasn't and we still haven't really recovered from losing Petro. All I'm saying is that whether or not you agree with Army's decision, there was clearly logic behind it.

As far is Dunn is concerned, he was "promoted" after 2019-2020 and played over 19 minutes a game. He struggled with consistency then, so we would've been in the same position looking for a top pairing LH dman.

 

[Thallis]

Sheesh you'd think we'd just signed Nail Yakupov to a 5x5 with this reaction. Throwing up in your mouth over a 1 year league minimum contract for a guy who was clearly a top 4 D (At least until they got Tanev) on a Conference Finals team? Get a grip folks.

I think this signing is fine. All the hand-wringing over the fact that it's 1-way, remember this isn't NHL24. 1-way just means you get paid the same in the NHL as the AHL. If Suter sucks, we send him to the AHL and all that happens is Tom Stillman loses a bit more money. I look at this like a training camp invitee. If he comes in and plays well, then great, if not, then we send him packing or look to trade him for the increasingly popular and possible hidden gem Future Considerations (I hear that kid has a ton of upside, but needs more time to marinate.)

Suter was a solid contributor last year. I'd 100% trust him in a top 4 role over Krug, that's for damn sure. He also replaces, nay I daresay improves, the PK over what we were getting from Krug and Scandella.

Overall it's a buy low move that can help us stay in contention for the playoffs. We can argue if that's the right move for this year or not, but it's been pretty clear for the last year or so that Army is going to continue pushing to make the playoffs, even if that's to the detriment of the long-term future of our organization. Am I a bit concerned over the personality stuff? Yea, maybe a bit. But I also think a guy who's been bought out twice and is now playing on a leage minimum contract he signed 10 days after UFA started might stfu a bit.

This isn't league minimum. Bonuses he's likely to hit are $2.5M for playing 60+ games and he's not going to sign that if he thinks it's unlikely he won't hit that metric. Him being a top 4 D in minutes was exactly the problem, he was actively losing them games because he's toast. He is easily a worse player than Krug.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

This isn't league minimum. Bonuses he's likely to hit are $2.5M for playing 60+ games and he's not going to sign that if he thinks it's unlikely he won't hit that metric. Him being a top 4 D in minutes was exactly the problem, he was actively losing them games because he's toast. He is easily a worse player than Krug.

Pretty much every advanced metric disagrees with you, but ok.

Suter is a good defensive defenseman at this point in his career. The Krug-Faulk pairing hasn't worked since Monty left. Krug-Kessel seemed to work fairly well, and could work even better with lower QoC. Faulk has always been more of an offensive guy. I think this works out better than a lot of the doomers on here are going to think it does. /shrug

As for the money thing - who cares? We're not even close to the cap and we probably won't be next year as we incorporate more ELCs for overpriced vets. It seems like a win-win. He plays 60 games and does well and we make the playoffs. He plays 60 games and he does poorly and we draft higher. He doesn't play 60 games and we don't make the playoffs and we don't pay him. What's the outcome here that's bad?

 

[Majorityof1]

Pretty much every advanced metric disagrees with you, but ok.

Suter is a good defensive defenseman at this point in his career. The Krug-Faulk pairing hasn't worked since Monty left. Krug-Kessel seemed to work fairly well, and could work even better with lower QoC. Faulk has always been more of an offensive guy. I think this works out better than a lot of the doomers on here are going to think it does. /shrug

As for the money thing - who cares? We're not even close to the cap and we probably won't be next year as we incorporate more ELCs for overpriced vets. It seems like a win-win. He plays 60 games and does well and we make the playoffs. He plays 60 games and he does poorly and we draft higher. He doesn't play 60 games and we don't make the playoffs and we don't pay him. What's the outcome here that's bad?

I agree with a lot of this. However, the downside is he plays well, but we need a #1/2 LHD not a #4/5 one and we miss the playoffs anyway and draft 16th again, and miss out in the 2nd tier of prospects again.

A team in a retool does not need mid to bottom pair 39 year olds. I get acquiring the younger guys for dirt cheap. If they pan out, great, re-sign them. But there is no future with Suter and no version of the multi-verse where this blues team does any damage in the playoffs. So what do we gain from one year of a 39 year old #4/5?

We just keep making moves designed to keep us in the playoff bubble. It's weird. It's all part of the plan but Wtf is the plan?

 

[SirPaste]

I agree with a lot of this. However, the downside is he plays well, but we need a #1/2 LHD not a #4/5 one and we miss the playoffs anyway and draft 16th again, and miss out in the 2nd tier of prospects again.

A team in a retool does not need mid to bottom pair 39 year olds. I get acquiring the younger guys for dirt cheap. If they pan out, great, re-sign them. But there is no future with Suter and no version of the multi-verse where this blues team does any damage in the playoffs. So what do we gain from one year of a 39 year old #4/5?

We just keep making moves designed to keep us in the playoff bubble. It's weird. It's all part of the plan but Wtf is the plan?

I can't remember who but someone posted the South Park Underpant's Gnome plan the other day in regards to Army's plan and its starting to make more and more sense every day

 

[TurgPavs]

The Suter crap comes from a Jason Arnott interview a couple years back.
Of course many Wild fans have stated that Koivo, Suter, and Parise where all issues in that locker room.

Jason Arnott rips former Predators teammate Ryan Suter: 'All he'd do was complain'

Jason Arnott didn't hold back when talking about former teammate Ryan Suter.

ca.sports.yahoo.com

 

[ChicagoBlues]

How much dirt does this guy have on the NHL?

 

[Memento]

Sheesh you'd think we'd just signed Nail Yakupov to a 5x5 with this reaction. Throwing up in your mouth over a 1 year league minimum contract for a guy who was clearly a top 4 D (At least until they got Tanev) on a Conference Finals team? Get a grip folks.

I think this signing is fine. All the hand-wringing over the fact that it's 1-way, remember this isn't NHL24. 1-way just means you get paid the same in the NHL as the AHL. If Suter sucks, we send him to the AHL and all that happens is Tom Stillman loses a bit more money. I look at this like a training camp invitee. If he comes in and plays well, then great, if not, then we send him packing or look to trade him for the increasingly popular and possible hidden gem Future Considerations (I hear that kid has a ton of upside, but needs more time to marinate.)

Suter was a solid contributor last year. I'd 100% trust him in a top 4 role over Krug, that's for damn sure. He also replaces, nay I daresay improves, the PK over what we were getting from Krug and Scandella.

Overall it's a buy low move that can help us stay in contention for the playoffs. We can argue if that's the right move for this year or not, but it's been pretty clear for the last year or so that Army is going to continue pushing to make the playoffs, even if that's to the detriment of the long-term future of our organization. Am I a bit concerned over the personality stuff? Yea, maybe a bit. But I also think a guy who's been bought out twice and is now playing on a leage minimum contract he signed 10 days after UFA started might stfu a bit.

That isn't league minimum with the incentives you know he's going to get, and you're paying that money for a thirty-nine-year-old pylon with character problems. Did you not watch the playoffs? Did you not see that Suter was a huge problem, being too slow to catch up? He's thirty-nine. He's slowed down a ton. And he's had character issues since Nashville, character issues in Minnesota, character issues in Dallas.

Two teams bought him out because they were sick of him and didn't want to pay him. We just paid a f***ing second-round pick to get Hayes out of here because of those supposed locker room issues. Why bring in someone even worse?

I love a lot of what we've done in the offseason (although I remain baffled by the Ralph and Kos picks, and remain angry that we re-signed Kapanen for personal reasons), but quite simply, this move is not one of them.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I agree with a lot of this. However, the downside is he plays well, but we need a #1/2 LHD not a #4/5 one and we miss the playoffs anyway and draft 16th again, and miss out in the 2nd tier of prospects again.

A team in a retool does not need mid to bottom pair 39 year olds. I get acquiring the younger guys for dirt cheap. If they pan out, great, re-sign them. But there is no future with Suter and no version of the multi-verse where this blues team does any damage in the playoffs. So what do we gain from one year of a 39 year old #4/5?

We just keep making moves designed to keep us in the playoff bubble. It's weird. It's all part of the plan but Wtf is the plan?

I think Armstrong has articulated his plan fairly well, for people who have been willing to listen. Do you like his plan is another story entirely. His plan is as follows:

1. Stay competitive. This doesn't mean Cup or bust, it generally means make the playoffs and see what happens.
2. Incorporate the younger players into this competitive environment. See if they thrive, or if they falter. If they falter, move on from the ASAP before their value plummets.
3. Continue to accumulate assets/players when the opportunity strikes.
4. Wait out some of the NTC's and then move on from players who are under-performing, hopefully at a time when some of our younger players are ready to step into larger roles, or there's a trade/UFA to sign to replace them.
5. Reevaluate the overall talent level of the team once the dead weight contracts are gone.

I think that pretty much sums it up. I'm not sure it's the best plan, but it is a plan.

 

[shpongle falls]

From what I can gather from Stars fans is that during the reg season Suter is still a solid bottom pairing d but was out of gas by the the time the playoffs started.

 

[PocketNines]

My argument isn't that it was a good decision. Clearly it wasn't and we still haven't really recovered from losing Petro. All I'm saying is that whether or not you agree with Army's decision, there was clearly logic behind it.

You disagree with the action but are arguing this as if "having a thought process" redeems the action somehow. I am saying that you are forgetting that this "logic" is in total conflict with the only logic that is relevant: the logic of "I better make smart decisions to try to win the Cup"

"I better make smart decisions to try to win the Cup" is the logic. What's in conflict with that is the total illogic of "I have to sign a big free agent now even if it's a crippling deal for a tiny turd"

So it is not a logical thought process. I am denying that even that happened

 

[BadgersandBlues]

That isn't league minimum with the incentives you know he's going to get, and you're paying that money for a thirty-nine-year-old pylon with character problems. Did you not watch the playoffs? Did you not see that Suter was a huge problem, being too slow to catch up? He's thirty-nine. He's slowed down a ton. And he's had character issues since Nashville, character issues in Minnesota, character issues in Dallas.

Two teams bought him out because they were sick of him and didn't want to pay him. We just paid a f***ing second-round pick to get Hayes out of here because of those supposed locker room issues. Why bring in someone even worse?

I love a lot of what we've done in the offseason (although I remain baffled by the Ralph and Kos picks, and remain angry that we re-signed Kapanen for personal reasons), but quite simply, this move is not one of them.

Again, who cares about the incentives? The cap is going up and we're clearly not a cap team. We don't need to worry about squeezing every dollar to maximum. He's an upgrade over Krug.

Dallas bought him out to sign Harley. We have no clue if he was an ass in Dallas or not. We have no real reporting saying Hayes was traded b/c he was a locker room cancer. You're doing a ton of projecting.

 

[BlueOil]

i wish someone would out play him so we didn't need him, but he's closer to playing top pairing minutes than getting out played by anyone on this squad

 

[Thallis]

Pretty much every advanced metric disagrees with you, but ok.

Suter is a good defensive defenseman at this point in his career. The Krug-Faulk pairing hasn't worked since Monty left. Krug-Kessel seemed to work fairly well, and could work even better with lower QoC. Faulk has always been more of an offensive guy. I think this works out better than a lot of the doomers on here are going to think it does. /shrug

As for the money thing - who cares? We're not even close to the cap and we probably won't be next year as we incorporate more ELCs for overpriced vets. It seems like a win-win. He plays 60 games and does well and we make the playoffs. He plays 60 games and he does poorly and we draft higher. He doesn't play 60 games and we don't make the playoffs and we don't pay him. What's the outcome here that's bad?

Advanced metrics tend to influenced by the players you play with, and alarm bells should be ringing when you have someone whose majority minutes were played with Heiskanen but has a whole 5% lower xGF. Suter actively dragged down those around him but was kept in the top 4 because Deboer couldn't help himself. He was regularly targeted and exposed, and was ultimately the reason why Edmonton broke through in the conference finals.

 

[Eldon Reid]

The Suter crap comes from a Jason Arnott interview a couple years back.
Of course many Wild fans have stated that Koivo, Suter, and Parise where all issues in that locker room.

Jason Arnott rips former Predators teammate Ryan Suter: 'All he'd do was complain'

Jason Arnott didn't hold back when talking about former teammate Ryan Suter.

ca.sports.yahoo.com

The stuff with Nashville I can let it slide by because at that point because young and immature at that point. Wild & Stars would be more interesting to know more about.

 

[stl76]

What’s the plan here? Are we re-tooling? Trying to compete? Bleh. This is a move a mushy middle team would make. I don’t want to be in the mushy middle. Pick a lane!

Strong disagree. A mushy middle move would have been to sign a FA LHD to a long expensive contract. Signing an aging but still capable vet to a league minimum* 1 year contract is exactly the type of move a retooling team should be doing.

Let's think about this for a moment, by the time the TDL rolls around, it's very likely all the bonuses will be paid all that remains on the contract is the cap number (a.k.a league min*). It's 1 year, this doesn't block anyone long or even medium term. If he plays well, we may even be able to swindle some team for a top 90 pick at the TDL.

Advanced metrics tend to influenced by the players you play with, and alarm bells should be ringing when you have someone whose majority minutes were played with Heiskanen but has a whole 5% lower xGF. Suter actively dragged down those around him but was kept in the top 4 because Deboer couldn't help himself. He was regularly targeted and exposed, and was ultimately the reason why Edmonton broke through in the conference finals.

What about all his numbers from the regular season? They look pretty good IMO, with multiple partners including significant time w/ Nils Lundqvist, while playing nearly 19 mins a night on a team that finished 2nd in the entire league with 113 points.

What's more likely: 39 year old ran out of gas at the end of a long playoff run or 39 year old suddenly forgot how to hockey after a season of playing pretty well?

 

[Spektre]

I wonder if this signals that Army is willing to do anything to get rid of Krug including buying him out.

 

[Xerloris]

I don’t like it for the following reasons:

He’s pretty much washed up. I watched some of Dallas in the playoffs and he was bad in a 3rd paring role. I’d much rather just see what Krug, POJ, Peru and Tucker can do than add another guy to the mix and muddy the waters.

He’s supposedly a douche. Wild fans here hate the guy with a passion. He didn’t just burn bridges but napalmed them. Sounds like he wasn’t good in the locker room in Dallas either. I see no reason to invite those potential issues into our room.

He’s getting paid for past performance. He used to be good but the bonus structure is going to make it pretty easy for him to hit bonuses.

He could block some development. This sort of ties to my first point but this is probably what I dislike the most about what the Blues are doing. What’s the plan here? Are we re-tooling? Trying to compete? Bleh. This is a move a mushy middle team would make. I don’t want to be in the mushy middle. Pick a lane! I’d much rather see Peru and POJ be put into a bit of a sink or swim situation to see if they can grow. Instead we’re essentially doing the same thing we did with Cole, Dunn, Walman etc. Not being willing to go through the inconsistencies of a young d-man.

Some praise him for hardly ever missing games but IMO it’s because his effort level is meh. He plays. Gives solid effort. But has never ever gone balls to the wall. It’s a smart strategy in terms of staying in the lineup and having a long career but it’s not a winners mentality IMO. Just not the right guy to add to the mix IMO.

We've seen what Krug can do and we're sick of it.

I just threw up a bit in my mouth when I read the signing.

Locker room issues? Basically a pylon out there? Blocking the younger defensemen (plus Alexandrov, if we're talking about not qualifying him)?

I hate this move.

You seem to have real issues with a whole lot of players.

It's not just fans. Jason Arnott (who played multiple seasons with him in Nashville) went on Cam and Strick's podcast after the Minnesota buyout and talked about how he was selfish and a complainer even as a rookie.

This in particular is why I think paying young guys so much money and kissing their ass so early in their career is a real issue. The even as a rookie part I mean.

 

[BleedBlue14]

I don’t like it for the following reasons:

He’s pretty much washed up. I watched some of Dallas in the playoffs and he was bad in a 3rd paring role. I’d much rather just see what Krug, POJ, Peru and Tucker can do than add another guy to the mix and muddy the waters.

He’s supposedly a douche. Wild fans here hate the guy with a passion. He didn’t just burn bridges but napalmed them. Sounds like he wasn’t good in the locker room in Dallas either. I see no reason to invite those potential issues into our room.

He’s getting paid for past performance. He used to be good but the bonus structure is going to make it pretty easy for him to hit bonuses.

He could block some development. This sort of ties to my first point but this is probably what I dislike the most about what the Blues are doing. What’s the plan here? Are we re-tooling? Trying to compete? Bleh. This is a move a mushy middle team would make. I don’t want to be in the mushy middle. Pick a lane! I’d much rather see Peru and POJ be put into a bit of a sink or swim situation to see if they can grow. Instead we’re essentially doing the same thing we did with Cole, Dunn, Walman etc. Not being willing to go through the inconsistencies of a young d-man.

Some praise him for hardly ever missing games but IMO it’s because his effort level is meh. He plays. Gives solid effort. But has never ever gone balls to the wall. It’s a smart strategy in terms of staying in the lineup and having a long career but it’s not a winners mentality IMO. Just not the right guy to add to the mix IMO.

I guess I can see the arguments there about this being a middling move. But that’s more or less the reality of the path the Blues have picked, right or wrong. I can understand why they have, it’s hard to pinpoint where development happens, but playing a season of meaningful games and having the opportunity for young guys to play themselves into a role on a team that could realistically fight for a wildcard slot could very well be more beneficial than throwing them into the fire without a real direction on how to get out.

He very well could be a pain if a teammatte. I don’t really know. But I do know our current group outside of Schenn really don’t seem to have that ass in them when things are going rough (Russians excluded) this is a fine line to walk, because he in reality could just be a miserable person to be around.

I’m not so concerned about this being a Dunn situation. Dunn clearly had a skill set that had something in it. Perunovich maybe has that, but he can’t stay healthy, and what’s his ceiling, Krug? We’re currently riding that wave.

I agree that we weren’t willing to ride with the mistakes of a young defenseman in regards to Dunn. I’m not sure we’re in that spot now though. But I also don’t really believe we have that young defenseman where we need to do that currently.

 

[Meatwagon]

I’ve always wanted Suter on the Blues, it’s hilarious it’s on his retirement tour.

We have now become the St. Louis Stars Rejects

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I wonder if this signals that Army is willing to do anything to get rid of Krug including buying him out.

He could have traded him last year. I think there is probably still a trade market that is more attractive than a buyout.

 

[Spektre]

He could have traded him last year. I think there is probably still a trade market that is more attractive than a buyout.

It’s possible a team would take him in the right deal but JR’s reporting a source close to Krug says he will still block any trade.

“Krug has one more season with a fully protected no-trade clause before it changes to a modified clause in 2025, when he’ll provide the Blues with a 15-team no-trade list. Until then, he must approve any deal the club tries to make, and as of now, a source close to him says that he would not be willing to waive his no-trade clause.”