SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

TheEarthmaster

Good Opinion Haver
Member Since
Jun. 7, 2018
Favourite Team
St. Louis Blues
Forum Posts
1831
Posts per Day
0.9
Forum: Armchair-GMMon. 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.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 6 at 6:05 p.m.
Thread: Colton
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KingExLeafs</b></div><div>Parayko is not an asset Blues fans and Leafs fans think he is. He is a ticking time bomb contract wise. Older player who plays a tough physical game, who knows how his health will hold up? Is there even a market for him?

So the trade is really Minten, Liljegren and a 1st for Buch half retained and that's a respectable offer.</div></div>

I said as much a comment or two up that I have no clue what the ultimate value on Parayko if he's traded would end up being. It would probably be weird. And I agree that whoever is dealing with that contract at age 34-37 is probably going to be in a world of hurt.

That said, there's a reason teams sign those contracts in the first place. If he was a pending UFA that signed with the leafs, I'm not sure how much less the contract would be- a year or two shorter and maybe a million less? That's not nothing but that's not much less of a troublesome deal.

At the end of the day though you're still putting him at the top of your lineup right now, because you need a guy there and he can do the job, at least for now. That's why those contracts get signed. That has to be worth more than a pending UFA that, again, EVERY armchair-gm has the leafs moving if they're adding big salary, and a guy who has 19 points on the season, bad contract or not. This is especially true if the Blues still think they can compete with Parayko (a belief I personally think is misguided, but I'm not the Blues so)

The Buchnevich offer- I feel like that's less than Vancouver gave up for Lindholm without retention. I guess your mileage on Kuzmenko compared to Liljigren might vary. But I think Buchnevich PLUS retention has to be worth more than Lindholm, even with the winger vs center thing. He's having a better year, and the term only helps a contender further in the future.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 6 at 5:12 p.m.
Thread: Colton
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>whatsmyageagain281</b></div><div>Careful with that logic, every non-Leaf fan thinks every player the Leafs are interested are that valuable and every Leaf asset is trash.</div></div>

This comment would play a lot better if the Leafs were giving up either of their nationally ranked prospects in this proposed trade, and every leafs armchair-gm I see wasn't firing TJ Brodie into the sun. The 1st is more or less comparable to the first of any other contender's 1st and don't let anyone tell you different, but at the end of the day the Leafs aren't giving up anything else of needle-moving value here. Maybe you could talk me into Liljigren, a player I've got time for. But Fraser's ranked 4th or lower in every pool ranking I've seen and Robertson is just kind of a body quickly losing runway on becoming much more than that.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 29 at 3:28 p.m.
Thread: BLAME ARMSTRONG
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CantStopWontStop</b></div><div>I don’t take issue with much, but I aim differently.

GMDA and the Blues record of drafting and development stands on its own, so things like Burns and Stenberg are hard to criticize.

My issue is that Doug Armstrong went to the draft floor last year intending to retool the roster, and did not.

At the previous trade deadline he took all the center ice minutes, except Robert Thomas, and traded them away. The replacement? 1 center who needed another team to pay half his pay due to being meh.

So now stl leads in cumulative wjc u20 scoring. That’s a huge waste for our organization, we have no business having that much firepower in non nhl leagues. He should have done his job, used some of that to have a better active roster.

What was the point of Vrána? When it was clear he was not working, the replacement is?

During the season we’ve had countless games where scandella, or another lefty, is on the right so perunovich can get minutes. Fine. I guess. Except it’s not. It’s routinely punished by other teams. The jets got 2 goals dumping the puck to scandellas side and watching the blues screw it up. The next night, the blues play the oilers, use normal defense pairs, and surprise?! The team can break out of its zone normally and the game is competitive.

So he had that deadline, the draft floor, and whiffed. Now he has a trade deadline. If he whiffs again, fire him. Maybe he’s pissed off too many of his peers, or they don’t trust him, whatever.

I hope it’s embarrassing for him. He’s been a smug pos the last 2 years or so. Dude thinks he is waaaay fancier than he really is.</div></div>

Better active roster for what purpose? To barely make the playoffs? Like they could trade a 1st and Otto Stenberg for Jake Guenztel but is that really making them all that much closer to a cup this year, even if they make the playoffs? And then what do you do in few years, without a good forward prospect, a seemingly top 15 pick, and with 33 year old Jake Guentzel?

If we're assuming they literally can't move anyone with a NTC, I think they've done a decent job with roster decisions since last year- didn't commit any more money to a team that isn't competitive, prioritizing player development (Perunovich, Neighbours) over what's actively going to give them the best roster to win every night. They need to start shedding their bigger money commitments but again, not exactly something they have had full control over (and that's what Armstrong's biggest failing is).

I agree that he needs to be more active in retooling the roster, but I'm not sure if you can get there without taking some steps back first.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 29 at 3:08 p.m.
Thread: BLAME ARMSTRONG
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HolyJumpin81</b></div><div>I'd argue it was Faulk. But then again, the reason were in a retool is mainly offense not defense.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mokumboi</b></div><div>First of all, step back from the ledge about our prospects, buddy. Lindstein is far better than Gunny (who isn't a bad thing btw). Develop is not a straight line, sometimes demotions are just to allow the kid to play top minutes with top responsibilities before he comes back. Dvorsky will again give us two 1Cs, a rare advantage.

As for the defense, I keep saying this, it's not all about "the defense" crew. So much of the blame lies with the forwards it's not funny.</div></div>

The floor would be higher if they had better forwards, but I still think you'd would be building on a rotten foundation with the defense. I'm not saying they couldn't make the playoffs, or even win a round or two with this defense, but you're not building a sustainable cup contender if the centerpiece of the defense is 30 year old Colton Parayko- a player I have a lot of time for- let alone the bloated support staff.

I don't disagree with the fact that their immediate problems are with scoring, but that was a die they more or less intentionally cast. They traded all the forwards who were, though old, still top 6 players and then replaced them with guys who were either on waivers or headed that way. So this was predictable, if not outright expected. They have a bunch of forward reinforcements coming though, while the defense is exactly the same. That's still the area that needs the most work.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 29 at 2:51 p.m.
Thread: BLAME ARMSTRONG
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HolyJumpin81</b></div><div>I mean it did in 2022 though, with basically the same defense as now. It was the offensive depth and firepower that once it disintegrated, it was over (Perron, Orielly, Tarasenko, Schenn). Not saying Dougs a genius hes made some horrific mistakes (Petro being the worst), and I agree about the blueline.</div></div>

They thing you have to remember about 21-22 is that every single member of the Blues forward group had a shooting percentage of like 900% and Ville Husso had a season on par with the one BInnington is having right now. They did that year what Seattle did last year, and here we are with Seattle's roster barely changed from when they beat the reigning cup champs in the playoffs and they're lower in the standings than the Blues right now.

You simply could not have built a sustainable cup contender with this defense, unless you had a consistently elite goaltender and an overpowered collection of forwards. The Blues have neither.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 28 at 5:19 p.m.
Thread: Sensible 2 point 0
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>tstrauss16</b></div><div>I’d rather give away Kyrou than Dvorsky in a trade to Ottawa. Much rather have a 2nd line center with upside.</div></div>

It doesn't make a lot of sense to make a "win now" move like trading for Tkachuk while subtracting a bunch of other "win now" pieces in their prime like Kyrou (and frankly, Buchnevich). You don't want to trade for Brady and then still just be a playoff bubble team.

I get why Brady is so coveted- intangibles, fighting, looks like cares out there, whatever- but it's not exactly like he's been dragging an arguably stronger group of forwards in Ottawa to victory, he's had more help than this agm-roster is giving him and he's not even PPG. Effort and reputation is going to affect a lot of opinions but strictly speaking about his on ice results- he's much closer to a Kyrou level player than most people would care to admit- Decent score but you always feel like there should be more there and he gives a lot of it back the other way.