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-GMFeb. 23 at 4:03 p.m.
Thread: Fitzy it starts with you buddy
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NHLfan10506</b></div><div>I do not think Fitzy is the problem

TyeZerker <a href="https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/4470138">last summer</a> "They dont need a goalie RN, stop panicking over it."

TyeZerker today: "This team is built poorly by Fitzy, dude is not a good GM .....refused to get a goalie ....When others gonna start to question the GM of the Devils."</div></div>

Damn dude had the RECIEPTS!

If you don't have a starting caliber goalie in the system who have a lot of control over, wading in goalie waters can be really tricky. So many big goalie signings that just have not worked at all- Campbell, Korpisalo, Merzlikins, Bobrovsky until VERY recently- that kind of stuff can really really handcuff your team. Best case scenario is you get a guy who you can do for cheap and can readily move on from if/when the situation arises, and then build a good defense around him.

I'd say Fitz did a great job in that regard. Graves, Marino, Sigenthaler (the latter's inconsistent play this year aside) were all really strong adds, and he knew when to move on from Graves and Severson as well. Lot of young guns just breaking into the league. Dougie thing is unfortunate, but this wasn't a guy who like had an extensive injury history when they signed him. And yeah, the Vaneck thing is a risk you run when you don't have a #1 goalie ready, and that sucks but I think it's better than the alternative. Paying for saves rarely works out well. Usually you gotta draft and develop your guy.

I'm not really worried about Timo Meier. Palat thing is fair, though I do like what he brings to this lineup. I would also say I'm not really sure why Fitzgerald hasn't made a coaching change (maybe less so now than, say, 2-3 months ago). Best case always seemed like Ruff didn't hurt anything, I don't think he's the coach that can make a roster more than the sum of its parts.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 21 at 12:09 p.m.
Thread: Is this acceptable
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BDHockey</b></div><div>
I thought the value was relatively fine. Bolduc has good value, but he might also be one of the better of our abundant young forwards to turn into a defenseman.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AC14</b></div><div>The offer was an overpay. It was a former 17th OA pick and a 2nd.

If you're looking to get the type of return you suggested, Ferraro isn't getting moved, which I'd imagine is fine if you see him as Jaccob Slavin as you seem to.</div></div>

I tend to agree that of the "higher end" forwards the Blues have in their system Bolduc is the one that makes the most sense to move in a larger trade. And yes the Blues have been winning recently, so that makes it more tempting to pull of a larger trade now. But I'm not convinced now is really the time for the Blues be moving those assets given the money they have on the books. So many of the guys they're relying on heavily being over 30- Parayko, Faulk, Binnington, Schenn in particular- there's still plenty of opportunity for this team to take a step back in the next year or two even with the reinforcements they have coming.

And there's a lot of variance to what Ferraro can be moving forward. He's got a good enough hockey IQ to be a solid defenseman on a contending team, but at 25 he's probably not reaching "top pair on a contending team" level anymore. I think he was an easy player to get hyped about given his attitude and more intangible qualities but if the Sharks are valuing him at Slavin level, that's especially too rich for the Blues given where they are.

I'm not opposed to adding though. I'd just bet smaller. Blues should consider looking into Ty Emberson if they're targeting young defensemen on the Sharks. Good defensive metrics, better than Ferraro's (on a terrible defensive team). He's been averaging 18 minutes a night for them (though he's only played half the season). Don't think he would cost a lot either.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 6 at 5:37 p.m.
Thread: My ideal TDL and offseason
I do agree with your take on the team (that they're likely not going to be a contender for 3 years, and so why bother really). But I think there could be more follow through on the direction to set up that future contention window.

If they're not going to be a contender for three years, why waste a retention slot to dump Krug for basically nothing when his contract will be up in three years anyway (with his trade clause reducing in one year), while keeping Parayko's contract (years 34-37 of which would be running through the "new" contention window) instead of trying to trade him instead? I think he's played pretty well but the upside is that he's the SAME player in three years. He's not going to be a better player. He'll probably be a worse one. Why should a non-contending team take that risk? Keep Krug (or Faulk) instead and peacefully move on in three years, while maybe someone gives you something actually useful now in order to take on the last 6 years of that Parayko deal at full freight.

If they're going to sell assets with term, the assets that make sense to sell are a) players who are good and/or b) players whose remaining term is prohibitive for the long term future of this team. To me that describes Buchnevich/Parayko/Binnington/maybe Faulk. I'm not really worried about moving Leddy/Krug/Schenn/Saad. Most of both groups will have to turn over sooner than later, as we'll need the roster spaces, but as far as maximizing value while not handcuffing the future goes, I think the first group should be the priority on moving out.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 17 at 10:57 a.m.
Thread: This is still a Kyle Dubas team
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Brad_Treliving</b></div><div>Yup, it's absolutely fine to question the front office but as for Tre, I feel like he still didn't implement this team. In yesterdays Jason Gregor show, Tre was a special guest and he said that he talks to Sheldon Keefe about the players that they want to add and that also applies to extension. So in theory, I think Keefe told Tre to extend David Kampf

As for Nylander, Dubas set Tre up in a lose-lose situation. These were his three options:

1) Let Nylander walk for nothing (similar to Gaudreau situation)
2) Trade Nylander at the deadline (why would Tre wanna risk his playoff spot pre-contract extension especially with the numbers he was putting up)
3) Give Nylander what he wants (Dubas didn't negotiate his contracts with the big four so what leverage does Tre have)

His best choice was to give Nylander what he wants an hope he keeps putting up the same numbers. Tre just learned the truth about this player and now he will have to live with it

As for Bertuzzi and Domi, no one expected this type of downfall by both players. Bertuzzi was a beast and a difference maker in both Detroit and Boston but it's funny that a soft coach in Sheldon Keefe doesn't know how to utilize him</div></div>

I'll grant you the Nylander thing, to a point, but Treliving did not have to keep Sheldon Keefe. He could have fired him at any point, and it wouldn't have been that hard to justify it. Instead he extended Keefe. So you can blame all the bad stuff on Keefe if you want but the only reason he's still here is because Treliving wants him to be here. If you're complaining about roster construction and how guys are being used, Treliving has had a pretty large impact on why the circumstances are that way even in just the last few months.

Basically none of his offseason contributions have worked well, and whether that's because he made a bad decisions on who to sign or he made a bad decision on who was the right coach for the situation, that's very much on him.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 22, 2023 at 6:55 p.m.
Thread: Allvin Free Agency
Garland's really good but it's one of those moves that keeps the Blues in the middle. He's going to help them too much to be bad and get high draft picks but he's not good enough to meaningfully transform their roster into one that does much of anything (mostly because he doesn't address the part of the roster that's really holding them back) so they just get to be a team that picks 10-20 in perpetuity. Targeting Garland (a good value add for a third round pick IMO) only makes sense if they do other stuff to get back to contention, and that seems unlikely (especially by the draft).

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mokumboi</b></div><div>I kinda doubt the Blues go for that, at least until they've switched out at least one of their top 5 LDs.

However, I would probably say yes myself if you agreed to add Woo for a 4th into the trade.</div></div>

Woo lost his waiver eligibility this year, could have been had for nothing and no one claimed him. 4th round pick is basically nothing but it's not actually nothing.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 20, 2023 at 5:38 p.m.
Thread: How far off is this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>sensonfire</b></div><div>There's no other player in the league that plays like Brady.

If the asking price isn't met, he doesn't get traded.

It's that simple.</div></div>

The asking price might be reasonable but that doesn't mean it inherently makes sense for the Blues. The Blues are barely more competitive than the Sens are right now, in a worse conference, so what exactly is Chabot and Tkachuk doing for them for the next couple of years?

If the Blues are trading for those players that would mean they're going for it which means it doesn't make sense to give up Kyrou. If they're giving up Kyrou and Parayko, they're getting players back who better, but not the kind of players that is going to take a mediocre team into being a good one again (as you should well know having watched them try and fail to do that for the Sens for like three straight years now), which means they're going to need those picks to actually supplement the foundation (which is exactly the situation they're in right now).

This is a hockey trade that only makes sense for Ottawa, which makes sense because it was made by an Ottawa fan.

The fit just isn't there right now for where these teams are in their life cycles.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 15, 2023 at 4:02 p.m.
Thread: Theyre not going to trade Kyrou after firing Berube
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AC14</b></div><div>I would be very particular in a return for Buchnevich and Parayko. I would be very open to moving almost anyone else outside of the core players group. Aside from possibly Sunny due to circumstances. Not sure you want to move a guy who bent over backwards to come back here because he wants to be here. Especially in a circumstance we’re in an out now where it could be ugly for a couple of seasons.</div></div>

Sundqvist has been rock solid, especially for his salary. If he wants to stick around through a rebuild for a couple years I would be supportive. I was suspicious on bringing him back (just because that's always what teams with closed windows do with their old cup guys) but I think he'd be good for the room and to eat some minutes.

RE: Parayko, I'm still a believer in his abilities. Still think he's the best defenseman on the team. But I also think the Blues just cannot take the risk of going through a rebuild and then coming out of it with mid-thirties Parayko having 2-3 years left on his deal. The range of possibilities of where his play will be is so wide, if he'd move I'd love someone else to take the risk. You bring in someone worse to eat the minutes in the short term and fire up the tank, and save Stillman some money for when he's gotta dole out extensions to the hopefully many many good young players they draft.

With Buchnevich I still waffle back and forth. I'd really hate to lose him, but what he could fetch (especially for 2 playoff runs, potentially) could be too valuable. Wouldn't take much to talk me into an extension, if the money and term was right.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 14, 2023 at 5:30 p.m.
Thread: Granlund TDL Discussion
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>yikes</b></div><div>I just don’t see a world that a single 2nd for Granlund at 50% 2.5m aav mid 6C / 2C who PK’s and is multi dimensional is fair for San Jose. His plays been outstanding if we don’t even reference his production, just purely eye test. His term shouldn’t be a problem for the rangers for example because the rangers are still going to be win now next year. They’ll get over 5m from the deal in savings (including the rising cap).
I think if we’re just purely talking Granlund for a pick no team specific, I’ve outlined he regresses; he should go for around or atleast a first.

If Granlund keeps his production and pace - let’s say he’s at TDL with 55 points in 60 games… I mean this who post would look laughable in terms of undervaluing him.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AStovetop</b></div><div>I think you're severely undervaluing him. I can guarantee anyone saying any of this is an overpay hasn't ACTUALLY watched him this year. OP has 50% retention ( which in reality kills any deal from the Sharks perspective) so having and high end PKer who produces at a 50-70 pt pace at 2.5 is probably the best contract in the league. Even if he drops off, with the cap is rising next year, 2.5 is a crazy small risk for a depth forward at worst, top 6 / 2C at best</div></div>

You guys are saying he's a 2C but he's only a 2C *on the San Jose Sharks*. Most contending teams wouldn't be acquiring Granlund with the intention of playing him in a 2C role. On the Rangers, on Vegas, on Edmonton, he would be a 3C at best, probably a winger and very likely not in the top six.

Now it's possible for depth players to be worth a 1st round pick-ish- Coleman, Goodrow, JG Pageau. The difference is all of those guys were much younger, and most of them were dirt cheap (cap wise). One of you says it's a non-starter to retain, the other says obviously the sharks should retain if it gives the assets. This is something the Sharks brass will have to reckon with and that will greatly affect the market due to his term.

At the end of the day, rival GMs (much like rival fans being critiqued!) are not going to be tuning in every night to watch Mikael Granlund play either. They're going to be looking at the production (good!), they're going to be looking at the underlying numbers (mostly bad! though the last 9 games have been decent). And they're going to watch some tape that an intern stitches together. Then around February they'll start tuning in more. So for his value to raise, he's going to have to play this well for more than the 9 games he has. By OPs own math he hasn't had more good games than bad this year and yet his value of a first round pick is unassailable? C'mon.

And if this wasn't clear- teams can talk themselves into doing stuff all the time. The Leafs traded a 1st for Foligno. The Lightning traded a 1st for Savard. These were dumb moves, but the price was still the price. So can some GM talk himself into trading a 1st for Granlund? I'm not putting it past anyone. But if, as OP says, we're talking about what I- as the GM of a generic TDL buyer- would do: I've got Ryan Dzingel in the back of my head still and regardless I have to see more than 9 games. I can't remember a 1st round pick being traded on the basis of 9 good games before.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 14, 2023 at 3:40 p.m.
Thread: Granlund TDL Discussion
There's a few caveats:

- Granlund has an extra year. Will that help or hurt his value, considering teams would have to fit him under the cap next year? He's not a pure rental like Eller, and it's harder to talk yourself into "untapped upside" like Greenway when the player will be 32 by the trade deadline.

- The Sharks have already used 2/3 of their retained salary slots. Retaining salary could make the extra year more palatable (and potentially drive up the price), but is it worth it for a tanking Sharks team to tie up all three of their retention spots next year to turn that 3rd into a 2nd, or a late 2nd into a late 1st?

- Hard for me not to draw comparisons between Ryan Dzingel his last year on the Sens and Granlund right now on the Sharks, which is to say that on bad teams, somebody is going to score the goals. Somebody is going to look like a top six player when really, maybe they're only a top six player because no one else is. And as soon as that player goes from a bad team to a good team, they're not getting that opportunity, and they're not going to be the big contributor they may have looked like. If I was an acquiring team it would be something I would keep in mind when a 31 year old who never cracked 70 points in his prime and looked washed last year is suddenly looking like a big piece again.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 7, 2023 at 11:24 a.m.
Thread: I dont care about your Jake Shakes or Crosbys feelings
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>gpmack95</b></div><div>You do realize how good Maverick Bourque is, right?</div></div>

How much overlap is there between him being a top of the lineup NHL contributor and Crosby/Malkin/Letang/Karlsson being top of the lineup contributors though?

Penguins need to be treating every season those four guys are playing well like it's going to be the last, because there's a good chance it is. Can't swap Guentzel's roster spot for Marchment's roster spot on the basis of "well Mavrick Borque might play on our top line in two years" because who knows what this lineup looks like in two years?

In other words:

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PenGoater99</b></div><div>If it doesn't make the team better right now, it doesn't matter.</div></div>
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 4, 2023 at 5:56 p.m.
Thread: Will Snuggerud and Dvo Leapfrog Bolduc and Dean
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AC14</b></div><div>I took a few things away from this. I think the Kings do still have the culture of winning. Heck Doughty, Kopitar and Quick were some of the faces of those runs they went on. I think this is what pushes them over the edge currently to having them have been extremely successful the past two seasons. I think it's a model that's extremely similar to the Blues model. The outcome is the process of the whole type of situation.

I do agree with you though, I don't really consider them a true top end team. They aren't a Tampa, and barring Byfield ascending to being a true 1C with high end output and Clarke doing the same I don't think they'll get there. But what they do have is an extremely good base that should keep them successful and give them a chance for the next 5, probably 10 years.

I also don't really think the Pacific has been all that great anytime in the recent past. Alot of teams with alot of true issues.

But the good news for them is they have an environment for guys like Byfield and Brandt to be brought into good positions and be the alpha dogs there in the next 2-3 years while winning and doing so. I don't mind Armstrong shooting for this. But I also am not sure it's feasible to avoid the longterm turnaround. One way or another we're going to have to age out the Krug contract, ESPECIALLY if Doug isn't going to play hardball on the NTC.

I'm in a boat that has a pretty large appreciation for Armstrong as the GM and President of Hockey Ops. I think he's very concealed, but also very open and honest about his direction. Has he had some mistakes? For sure. I don't think anyone is going to know what exactly went down with the whole Pietrangelo situation. But that was a major root into the downfall of the roster. Not necessarily just because of the loss of Pietrangelo, but also because of the moves that seemed to be made out of urgency to try and fill the gap.</div></div>

Well the Byfield/Brandt thing, that's more or less what the Blues did with Thomas and Kyrou right? The team was good when those guys were coming up after being mediocre-ish when they were drafted. The Blues just couldn't maintain the momentum. Maybe you can blame some of it on the flat cap but you talk about Pietrangelo leaving- like to me that was just the worst offender of a problem the Blues had for awhile, which is that they seemed to stop understanding what made defensemen valuable, and generally acted very reactively.

- You extend Faulk into his mid thirties when he had never played a game while you're trying to re-sign your captain
- Bouwmeester goes down permanently and your only LHD is Vince Dunn so you panic and extend Scandella in his mid thirties based on 10 games while still trying to re-sign your captain
- Pietrangelo leaves so you panic and extend Krug (never mind that Devon Toews was traded three days later)
- Extend Parayko coming off a back injury until he's 37 because you can't fathom another Pietrangelo situation
- Scandella can't hack top four minutes (who would have thought?) so you panic trade for Leddy (giving away a future top pairing defenseman in the process)

Some of these guys are big. Some of them are small. Some of them are offensive. Some of them not so much. Some of them are puck movers, some not. They're all over the place except for one thing- they're old, and they're as expensive as they'll ever be. And in the meantime they hemorrhage younger guys who would go on to play top pairing minutes on other teams, and look pretty good doing it.

I don't mean to relitigate all this but when it comes to Armstrong- I think he's a decent GM, can't deny the ring, but I do think all GMs have a shelf life, and that timeline of mismanagement on the blue line is pretty damming. And frankly, I like Travis Sanheim but that's another guy signed into oblivion Armstrong supposedly tried to trade for. Not exactly indicative of someone learning their lesson to me. He can be a good GM but also, idk, for me maybe it's time.