SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

TheEarthmaster

Good Opinion Haver
Member Since
Jun. 7, 2018
Favourite Team
St. Louis Blues
Forum Posts
1845
Posts per Day
0.8
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 12:52 p.m.
Thread: It Already Is
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LGB314</b></div><div>"Defense is a mess however. Would not be opposed to a full rebuild once those NTCs fall off".</div></div>"

If they're going to rebuild they should rebuild now while those NTCs are affecting their ability to immediately improve the team anyway. I don't think you need to be San Jose, I think they could rebuild without trading Thomas and Kyrou or the young guys. But if they do that they're going to have to trade Buchnevich and Binnington. I don't care if Binnington is the second coming of Dominik Hasek, he's going to steal games for you and you can't be having that if you're rebuilding.

The lack of a number one defenseman is what makes this entire retool endeavor completely suspect to me. You have good pieces in place at forward and potentially goal depending on how you feel about Hofer's ceiling. But They don't have anything of note really on defense. Like I like Theo Lindstein well enough, I like Colton Parayko *in theory*, but where's Miro Heiskanen? Adam Fox? Evan Bouchard? Aaron Ekblad? And none of those guys just showed up- it took them longer than a few years to become #1 defensemen after being drafted. That's not even getting into the Blues' inability to properly evaluate defensemen young and old over the last few years.
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 12:19 p.m.
Thread: It Already Is
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>A_K</b></div><div>Just to play Devil's Advocate on Binnington... this is probably the first offseason since signing this contract that his trade value will be significant/positive. He was trending in the wrong direction for the last few years. I'm sure there is an argument to be made that his numbers were sewered by a bad team in front of him, but reality is that right now may be the best time to shop him. And with the Blues a few years away from competing, why would he be untouchable? To be honest I would've liked to see Buch and Binner traded last deadline. Considering the buyer's market that developed, it's understandable that they're still here but for me they are the obvious pieces to move in any effort to re-tool. They have the most trade value, a large impact on whether the team is bottom third or middle third in the standings, and the least importance to a 2026-and-beyond roster.</div></div>

It also just kind of makes sense given how old he is and what the Blues are looking at as far as their next contention window. Even the most optimistic person about the retool is saying we're 2 years away. Binnington will be 33 at the beginning of what is likely the soonest the newest contention window will start. If that contention window lasts a couple years, it'll certainly take him to the end of his contract if not the end of his career, and who knows what he looks like at 33, or 35.

So one way or another you're more likely than not going to have to transition to a different starter in the next five or so years. Would you rather be transitioning starters while you're actively trying to compete? Or do you want to start making that transition now where the stakes are lower? Seems like an easy call to me especially when Binnington's contract is one of the few they don't need his full permission to move.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 14 at 5:04 p.m.
Thread: For the Blues Fans - Buchnevich
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Samsquanch14</b></div><div>I feel like it would have to be a deadline deal, since most teams that are "contenders" are cap strapped and would be more desperate in giving away a younger, potentially Top 4 D at that time.</div></div>

I think it's the opposite that's true actually. Never underestimate a GMs ability to convince himself to NOT do a trade, I suppose, but in the summer, 20-25 teams can talk themselves into "we're gonna be in or around the playoffs this year" and thus feel compelled to pull the trigger on a bigger trade. Some rebuilding teams think they're ready to take a step. Bubble teams think they just need one piece to get into the playoffs. Contenders are trying to get better, or are panicking after a flaw has been exposed in the playoffs. A lot of teams have money. At the deadline, things are set, and the market shrinks.

If Montreal is in the same place at the TDL that they were this year, they're not trading for Buchnevich right? But they *might* trade for him now, if they're thinking they'll be better this year. And there's other teams that might feel that way too. Summer seems like the time to sell. I think the larger amount of potential suitors outweighs the increased desperation of a smaller amount of suitors at the deadline.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 14 at 2:29 p.m.
Thread: For the Blues Fans - Buchnevich
Other than maybe Robert Thomas, Pavel Buchnevich is my favorite player on this roster. I was advocating for them giving away a 1st to the Rangers to get him, they ended up getting him for less than that. He's been nothing but an unbelievable true 200ft player and if they re-sign him, I won't even pretend that part of me won't be glad he's staying, even if I agree with A_K that it's the wrong direction to go with this roster.

And it is the wrong direction to go. This team cannot have another red arrow on their Capfriendly page for a player that's 30 years old (which he will be when his next contract starts). It doesn't make sense to re-sign him. It doesn't make sense to let him walk for nothing. They can either do what doesn't make sense, or they can trade him. I would prefer my team to do things that make sense.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 14 at 11:22 a.m.
Thread: Who da taco seasoning
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SharkTank</b></div><div>And where's Vrana now? 🤔</div></div>

It doesn't matter, my point is that Detroit was coming out ahead no matter what by taking that Washington trade. They didn't trade Mantha because they thought he was a flawed player (as evidenced by the fact that they got a similarly flawed player back and basically gave him Mantha's contract right away, clearly Yzerman wasn't opposed to one-dimensional hitting-averse wingers). They traded Mantha because Washington made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

Now that both players have busted for both teams, Washington is left with basically nothing and Detroit has their potential goalie of the future. Good asset management more than good player analysis.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 3 at 2:24 p.m.
Thread: dubois
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JosiahWolfe_</b></div><div>all this for dubios to ask for a trade out of calgary is 2 years</div></div>

He can demand all the trades he wants but if he already has a long term contract he does not have nearly the leverage/deadline pressure now that he did over Winnipeg and Columbus. Not to mention that contract is cooking is overall value right now.

Not saying Calgary should do this, but if he wanted to leave Calgary (or anywhere) in two years the only way he could really do so is by requesting a trade and then playing really really well, which would still benefit anyone who buys low now. If he doesn't play well, then everyone is stuck (which is the risk).

As long as he's on this contract, the days of Dubois strong-arming his way onto a different team are over.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 29 at 3:10 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 23 at 3:47 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 23 at 1:16 p.m.
Thread: imagine what we couldve had
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NucksnOilers</b></div><div>Eh looking back on things like this has never made sense to me.

Walman, Barbashev, Joshua and Dunn never become those players if they stayed in St.Louis, it just wasn't a fit for them and that's ok. You could do this for every single team in the league, no point in dreading over it</div></div>

Usually I agree these exercises can turn into nonsense, and I do agree when it comes to the forwards. However:

Dunn, Walman and I would argue Mikkola all leveled up after leaving St. Louis. You could make an argument that they all had similar opportunities here that they eventually had in Florida, Detroit and Seattle. Dunn was on the championship roster. They tried Mikkola and Walman a bunch of times in the top six before finally trading for Leddy. They COULD have become that here.

It's easy to turn around and blame the players or the circumstances in that case, but if you let go of three defensemen that all play three very different styles, and they all go on to be better/more relied upon players on three different teams, and the common refrain is "well they never could have become that here" (where "here" is a team that's been weak on defense since 2020), that's not on the players at that point. You have a development issue somewhere.

The Blues have not developed a defenseman they felt comfortable consistently playing in their top 4 since Colton Parayko, and this exercise shows us it's not because they haven't had them.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 15 at 2:30 p.m.
Thread: If Doug didnt panic after the cup
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>drambui</b></div><div>pietrangelo wanted to leave. Dunn was gone trough expantion draft, you would have lost a dman either way.

I guess you could have resigned o'reilly. not sure if he wanted to, but you traded him to have more youth too.</div></div>

The only time Pietrangelo ever anything remotely resembling that he "wanted" to leave was in the quotes right after he signed with Vegas where was like "yeah when I didn't have a contract four weeks before UFA I began to like the idea of leaving". They had OVER a year to give him another contract before then (extra time they uniquely had because of the COVID pause) and all they did was extend Faulk at market rate, extend Scandella at market rate (when they didn't even know what the cap would be), and dick Pierangelo around on contract structure. I'm not doing revisionist history on what is arguably the biggest reason the Blues' contention window shut.

You would have kept Dunn by exposing Krug, and you probably would have been able to keep both. You almost certainly lose Tarasenko in that case, maybe Walman if Seattle liked his upside.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Tsmash</b></div><div>Dunn was never doing to be as good as he is now if he stayed in stl and the same is probably true for walman and Mikkola.</div></div>

If you shed three very different styles of defenseman and all three go on to be better on three different teams and the natural reaction is "well they never could have been that here" then you likely have a player development problem.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 11 at 10:28 a.m.
Thread: Moving Krug
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>xercuses</b></div><div>Honestly i think we should just bury him at this point

send him a message</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MoSeider53</b></div><div>I think that would make the most sense, He'll be turning 33 tomorrow and injuries are only going to continue to pile up. Though he has had a pretty healthy season this year.</div></div>

What message is he supposed to be receiving? Don't get old and injured? If someone stupidly offers you 6.5 million until you're 36 you should say no? His on-ice struggles are not effort or buy-in related, at least the way I see it, so he's not going to be jumpstarted by a trip to Springfield. He's just a guy in his 30s who doesn't have 6.5 million dollars a year value anymore. This was a very apparent risk when Armstrong signed him.

I said this yesterday but I don't really see the upside for the Blues on going scorched Earth on Krug- whether that means buying him out or burying him in the minors. The buyout penalty is inherently not worth it, and while Krug might waive his NTC if the alternative is playing in the AHL, I don't think it becomes an easier sell to other teams that he's at all worth acquiring if this bubble playoff team feels he's not good enough to be on their roster.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 10 at 12:49 p.m.
Thread: Blues next year opening day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AC14</b></div><div>I would agree with almost everything here. I think we also often overstate the degree of detriment in which Krug is to the roster. Regardless of how frustrating it is watching him he is a very high end puck mover.

The other thing is, i'm not sure the organization is of the same mindset that we're that far off for some odd reason. I think if we could clear out Krug's cap hit, they would heavily pursue a guy like hanifin. If not I still see us as having a bit of a deficiency with production from the backend that the organization will probably try and remedy this offseason with a low cost signing or trade. I think that's kind of the directive they took with the Krug for Sanheim deal that had arose last offseason.</div></div>

I agree, all things being equal they 100% would jettison Krug and bring in Hanifin if they could do so without holding back any of Krug's money. It would fit right in with Armstrong's strategy of staying competitive and like you said, shades of the Sanheim trade.

I do have some questions about whether the Blues will spend to the cap next year, which may impact their ability to do that sort of thing even if they do find a way to move Krug. Also whether or not they would retain for three years- I'm open minded about retention in general but of course it's not my money.

Krug is a fine NHL player. He's not worth his contract, and he's got a set of skills that this roster doesn't really need, which makes him a very easy scapegoat. I'm supportive of moving on from him. But simply getting rid of him doesn't really address the underlying issue with the defense. I think pretty much everyone is playing one spot higher up the lineup than they ideally should be, from Parayko all the way down to Kessel. Bringing in Hanifin and nuking Krug doesn't really change that.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 10 at 11:39 a.m.
Thread: Blues next year opening day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>xercuses</b></div><div>I’d rather just buy him out</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Moss_Bucket</b></div><div>Yeah, I think your post about buying him out would likely be the option for St. Louis.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AC14</b></div><div>Would have to imagine if the Blues were to line up another trade for Krug that made sense there would be a conversation of if you don't take this we're going to send you to Springfield. I guess I get it trying to be respectful to the player the first go around. But regardless, if Army wouldn't exercise the option to waive the player to strongarm a trade, there's virtually 0 reason for him to be so strongly against NMCs and still hand out NTCs. There's alot of dialogue that that's the main reason Petro left.</div></div>

The other thing to be mindful of here is what is really the upside of going scorched earth on Krug. They need to be moving out the bad contracts and Krug certainly has one, but if you're adding around half of his cap hit as dead money (either in a retention trade or in a buyout) PLUS signing Hanifin to a big extension, you're tying up more money in your defense on veteran players than you are right now. Has that worked out well at all for the Blues over the last couple years? Signing a big UFA player into his thirties is a win-now move. You're banking on getting a few good years in which you can hopefully win a cup and then deal with the bad years later. That doesn't track with where the Blues are. They are not winning now.

I've said it a million times but it would be malpractice for the Blues to add any more veterans with significant term/money contracts until they get rid of their commitments they currently have. If you're retaining or buying out Krug, you're getting rid of some of the commitment but not all of it. If you're doing it just to open up cap space/roster spots for an additional pricey veteran? I just don't see the point.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 10 at 9:59 a.m.
Thread: Feeling Blues
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BDHockey</b></div><div>I would concievably move Kyrou in a trade for B. Tkachuk, but definitely not Thomas.</div></div>

Even that, different style of player obviously (and Tkachuk would obviously be more endearing to Blues fans for that reason, among others) but Kyrou and Brady Tkachuk are pretty much the same caliber of player. Good offensively (though in a way that makes you think there's always going to be another level that they just can't seem to reach) and defensively suspect. And frankly Kyrou has been perfectly good this season defensively while producing points at nearly the same pace.

Potentially more "leadership" with Tkachuk but I'm not sure how much of that reputation just comes down to "he'll fight people when they're losing".

Thomas, of course, is in a different stratosphere altogether.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 28 at 4:17 p.m.
Thread: Dvorsky
I can't really get worked up about who is going to play 3C if there are literally no other significant roster changes being made besides just bringing in Snuggerud. If Armstrong insists on keeping (or is forced to keep) the team in neutral then you might as well just play Schenn there. You do what's best for Dvorsky's development at that point, because I think you'd be hard pressed to expect much more out of this roster than we've seen this year.

I also don't think that Bolduc, Dean and Snuggerud are going to play so well down the stretch this season as to make the Blues forgoe bringing in any forward help this summer. I don't think they can go into the season with all of those guys penciled in for a roster spot. Veterans are fine as long as they don't cost too much money for too long. That's what really makes Stephenson a non-starter for me.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 12 at 6:27 p.m.
Thread: retool
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>noted</b></div><div>The Blues will have $11M to do something with. Wouldn't be the worst thing if they didn't spend to cap next season...</div></div>

So that's the thing- people are always like "oh well the Blues can't possibly afford to go through a rebuild financially" and I'm sure on some sense there may be truth to that given that the playoffs is where smaller market teams make most of their money. Even two home games can have a big impact on the bottom line.

But an easy way to make missing the playoffs multiple years in a row (as seems likely to be happening this year) much more affordable is not spending to the cap every year. Bank that 11 million for the future. For awhile this team NEVER spent to the cap, and so the Stillman group has made a big show of being guys that spend to the cap every year. And that's fantastic when the team needs to make big moves. But there are plenty of times when spending to the cap doesn't make sense, and I think unless they're getting payed in the form of picks or prospects to take on onerous deals from other teams right now is probably one of those times.

I liked their low-risk bets on Vrana and Kapanen, Hayes less so because of his term but like he's been fine. But it's hard to square "they have no money for a rebuild" with them spending 9 million on those three guys this year for basically no noticeable improvement in the standings compared to last year.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 12 at 4:55 p.m.