Doug Armstrong Question

[bluesfanforlife1992]

Hello Blues fans,

I’ve always been a fan of St. Louis and think overall Armstrong has made some very good deals, but I have a question. Do Blues fans feel like the last two years have proven that he has no feel for his team?

He has made two gigantic trades at the deadline weakening a squad that seems like they could do damage in the playoffs. The d-core isn’t getting any younger and if he truly is trying to retool why has Allen stuck around and why would you trade assets for Schenn (who has had a great season, but still)

It seems to me that Armstrong has lost the feel for the team, and while he’s done some great work in St. Louis his time is up after the Shattenkirk and Statsny trades.

I would say he has a feel for the team. This year's team I think the feel was lost due to all of the injuries. Losing Fabbri before the season hurt big time. Then losing Schwartz for those 20 games hurt the team.

The 2 trades IMO were necessary especially the Shatty one. Everyone KNEW Shatty wasn't going to return, and you had Parayko who was ready to step in to 2nd pairing RHD. The Shatty trade was very useful trade. It netted us Sanford, Malone (leftover), and 1st. I don't see that trade as weaken us for the playoffs. We could have beaten Nashville but that's another story for another time.

So at draft, we had 20 & 27 pick. Drafted Thomas at #20. Then because of our depth with forward prospects (which I will list later), he flipped the #27 and the following 1st with Lehtera for Schenn.

Then he wasn't done. He somehow managed to flip Reaves & 2nd for Sundqvist & 31st pick, which netted Kostin.

So we didn't have a 1st going into 2018. Season starts and Blues are in good spot, but lose 7 straight games and just look atrocious. They had to do something to either A. make the team play better with firing or trade or B. ride it and who knows what would happen. So Army chose A. and flipped player of value Stastny for Foley & 1st. Again another solid trade for us. The Blues played much better and in the end missed out by a point. We shot ourselves in the foot and NHL still can't tell what is onside or offside (though the call probably wouldn't have changed the game since Avalanche were outplaying us). Though I can agree that was weaking our chances at the playoffs, it was a calculated move by Army.

Looking at forward prospects (Player under 23 years old), you have the following:
Barbashev 22, Thomas 18, Kostin 18, Kyrou 19, Thompson 20, Blias 21, Sanford 23, Foley 20, (Fabbri if though he isn't really prospect anymore 22)

You have a solid group of prospects and some somewhat proven NHL player in this group above. With that 1st this year, I fully expect a trade (I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED if Army didn't make a trade). We have a surplus of forward prospects and need top 6 forward to help with the offense and coach that knows how to work a PP.

Overall Armstrong has been a pretty good GM. I think the biggest thing is he has a plan ahead for the team, and this off-season is HUGE for him and the front office.

 

[simon IC]

Eh, I liked being big and bad. Can we still be big and bad and be fast and talented too?

 

[Dbrownss]

Eh, I liked being big and bad. Can we still be big and bad and be fast and talented too?

Yes...and no lol

 

[simon IC]

Maybe I'm just mesmerized by watching the Bruins / Leafs. I saw two fast, skilled and exciting teams that also played a very hard hitting game. I just question whether "big and bad" and "fast and skilled" are mutually exclusive.

 

[Dbrownss]

Maybe I'm just mesmerized by watching the Bruins / Leafs. I saw two fast, skilled and exciting teams that also played a very hard hitting game. I just question whether "big and bad" and "fast and skilled" are mutually exclusive.

I dont think Yeo's system really emphasizes finishing checks. Blues have some guys coming that play heavy in Kostin and Foley, but you cant count on just them. Schenn is very physical but with playing center he doesn't forecheck as much I hope Yeo alters his philosophy

 

[Brian39]

I would say he has a feel for the team. This year's team I think the feel was lost due to all of the injuries. Losing Fabbri before the season hurt big time. Then losing Schwartz for those 20 games hurt the team.

The 2 trades IMO were necessary especially the Shatty one. Everyone KNEW Shatty wasn't going to return, and you had Parayko who was ready to step in to 2nd pairing RHD. The Shatty trade was very useful trade. It netted us Sanford, Malone (leftover), and 1st. I don't see that trade as weaken us for the playoffs. We could have beaten Nashville but that's another story for another time.

So at draft, we had 20 & 27 pick. Drafted Thomas at #20. Then because of our depth with forward prospects (which I will list later), he flipped the #27 and the following 1st with Lehtera for Schenn.

Then he wasn't done. He somehow managed to flip Reaves & 2nd for Sundqvist & 31st pick, which netted Kostin.

So we didn't have a 1st going into 2018. Season starts and Blues are in good spot, but lose 7 straight games and just look atrocious. They had to do something to either A. make the team play better with firing or trade or B. ride it and who knows what would happen. So Army chose A. and flipped player of value Stastny for Foley & 1st. Again another solid trade for us. The Blues played much better and in the end missed out by a point. We shot ourselves in the foot and NHL still can't tell what is onside or offside (though the call probably wouldn't have changed the game since Avalanche were outplaying us). Though I can agree that was weaking our chances at the playoffs, it was a calculated move by Army.

Looking at forward prospects (Player under 23 years old), you have the following:
Barbashev 22, Thomas 18, Kostin 18, Kyrou 19, Thompson 20, Blias 21, Sanford 23, Foley 20, (Fabbri if though he isn't really prospect anymore 22)

You have a solid group of prospects and some somewhat proven NHL player in this group above. With that 1st this year, I fully expect a trade (I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED if Army didn't make a trade). We have a surplus of forward prospects and need top 6 forward to help with the offense and coach that knows how to work a PP.

Overall Armstrong has been a pretty good GM. I think the biggest thing is he has a plan ahead for the team, and this off-season is HUGE for him and the front office.

Great post. I agree wth pretty much all of it and would add that I have been very pleased with Army's trades in the last 2 years.

My only real complaint about Army over the last couple years is related to extending guys too early and giving up slightly too much term. I don't have a huge issue with the AAVs on Steen and Bergie, but I'd like to see lesser term on each contract. I still don't see the rationale behind extending Steen as early as we did and I feel that we essentially paid market price on each. I don't think the contracts are as bad as many people suggest and overall none of Army's contracts since the Lehtera deal are crippling to the roster. None of our contracts even approach some of the terrible contracts given out around the league, but Army needs to move away from paying market value non-top end players. There are too many on the roster now and it needs to be addressed this summer.

 

[TruBlu]

Great post. I agree wth pretty much all of it and would add that I have been very pleased with Army's trades in the last 2 years.

My only real complaint about Army over the last couple years is related to extending guys too early and giving up slightly too much term. I don't have a huge issue with the AAVs on Steen and Bergie, but I'd like to see lesser term on each contract. I still don't see the rationale behind extending Steen as early as we did and I feel that we essentially paid market price on each. I don't think the contracts are as bad as many people suggest and overall none of Army's contracts since the Lehtera deal are crippling to the roster. None of our contracts even approach some of the terrible contracts given out around the league, but Army needs to move away from paying market value non-top end players. There are too many on the roster now and it needs to be addressed this summer.

I doubt those guys resign without the extra year. That was probably the selling point for keeping the cost down. That's the reality that GM's have to work with. Pony up the money, or risk almost certainly losing a contributing player to free agency. That in itself creates problems when you don't have anyone to fill that spot. You either have to hope one of your prospects steps up, or you have to go out into free agency and OVERPAY just like other teams would be willing to do on our UFA's had we not come to terms. The hard part is finding that sweet spot where an established player is content to stay, even for a little less money, to avoid the possibility of moving their family. Drafting has become such a huge part of having a successful team.

 

[Brian39]

I doubt those guys resign without the extra year. That was probably the selling point for keeping the cost down. That's the reality that GM's have to work with. Pony up the money, or risk almost certainly losing a contributing player to free agency. That in itself creates problems when you don't have anyone to fill that spot. You either have to hope one of your prospects steps up, or you have to go out into free agency and OVERPAY just like other teams would be willing to do on our UFA's had we not come to terms. The hard part is finding that sweet spot where an established player is content to stay, even for a little less money, to avoid the possibility of moving their family. Drafting has become such a huge part of having a successful team.

I get that, but my issue is that neither of those contracts really 'kept the cost down.' They were market value for the AAV they got. I'm speaking with the benefit of hindsight, but the biggest lesson I've learned from Army's contracts is that it is a mistake to sign non-elite roster guys to extensions well before you have to. If you're going to end up paying market price in AAV and term (or damn near market price), do it as close to them hitting free agency as you can. Get the benefit of the data acquired in the final year of their existing deal. Protect yourself against regression. It was highly unlikely that Steen's market value was going to increase from the 52 points in 67 games he put up in 15/16.

Look at the contracts Army as signed in the summer prior to the last year of their existing deal: Allen, J-Bo, Steen, Lehtera, Backes.

Backes was very clearly a core piece when we extended him in 2010 (He was given the A a couple months before the contract) and his age made it obvious that he was going to be a core piece for every year of that contract. All of the other contracts have backfired to some degree. I don't think the Steen contract is an albatross and I don't think it's going to cripple the team. I don't think any of the contracts we have on the roster are terrible. The only contract I'd go as far as saying is outright bad is the Bergie contract, which I hated since the day it was signed.

My point is simply that of the sub-optimal contracts we have, most of them are traced to pulling the trigger too early and paying market value a year before that market becomes a reality.

 

[TruBlu]

Having the benefit of hindsight, I'm actually more okay with the Berglund contract than Sobotka's. Berglund has shown the ability to score. I think his recent injury problems have really hampered his numbers. We have two seasons now where he's been sluggish coming out of the gate, but has eventually turned it on after he's had time to recover. That could turn out to be a very good contract if he can stay healthy. Sobotka hasn't shown anything since getting signed. He's completely underperformed in every facet of the game that he used to excel in. He doesn't look like the player we used to know. Maybe a change of scenery would help him, but I take what Berglund brings over him.

 

[bluesfanforlife1992]

Great post. I agree wth pretty much all of it and would add that I have been very pleased with Army's trades in the last 2 years.

My only real complaint about Army over the last couple years is related to extending guys too early and giving up slightly too much term. I don't have a huge issue with the AAVs on Steen and Bergie, but I'd like to see lesser term on each contract. I still don't see the rationale behind extending Steen as early as we did and I feel that we essentially paid market price on each. I don't think the contracts are as bad as many people suggest and overall none of Army's contracts since the Lehtera deal are crippling to the roster. None of our contracts even approach some of the terrible contracts given out around the league, but Army needs to move away from paying market value non-top end players. There are too many on the roster now and it needs to be addressed this summer.

Really contract wise Armstrong has done good even on the bad ones like Lehtera deal. At least he doesn't go LONG TERM with most player unless it is a good player. Lethera got 3 years ext. Lehtera deal was horrible basing it on 20 games, but only signing him for 3 year extension again another smart move where you have a chance to do something instead of burying it or buying it out.

Sobotka deal I wasn't a fan of. Rather trade him but figured they would have to sign him before they could do that.

Berglund contract I don't have any problem with. Reasonable contract (maybe a year long but still only 34 when the deal ends.) You know what to expect from Berglund. I would like to see him play a full year without the shoulder injury. I think he would be 20-25 goal 40ish pts player. Perfect 3rd line player. Can play all 3 positions.

Steen contract is one I didn't care for because. But Army was either going to sign Backes or Steen and they made their choice. So really it didn't matter to me what they did. I preferred Backes.

Bouwmeester contract was alright till injury now have made it look horrible. In hindsight, I see why he signed him. It was reasonable deal (little long and AAV a little high for liking), but again without the injuries I think Bouwmeester did would have been fine.

Gunnar extension wasn't terrible either. A little on high AAV, but again not a long term deal.

Allen extension again isn't terrible. Even with a bad year like this, he has decent track number and has some value if traded. (HEY better than paying Price 10 AAV for 8 years right?)

One thing we can all agree on is at least Army screw up deals aren't LONG LONG term deals.

 

[mk80]

Every team has bad contracts, or contracts that are held by under performing players in certain years. If as most can categorize, Steen, Berglund, and Bowmeester are the worst of our contracts, I'd take those any day of the week over other contracts around the league.

 

[TruBlu]

If you take out the benefit of hindsight, The contracts he's handed out have been pretty much in line with the market. His most questionable was to Lehtera. He didn't have a large enough sample size to measure his talent and took a chance on continued success with his seeming chemistry with Tank. It didn't work out very well, and assets had to be used to correct it, but the term wasn't too bad. I think he'll stay away from those from here on out. I'd take bets Fabbri gets one year contracts the next couple of years to gauge his progress.

 

[mk80]

If you take out the benefit of hindsight, The contracts he's handed out have been pretty much in line with the market. His most questionable was to Lehtera. He didn't have a large enough sample size to measure his talent and took a chance on continued success with his seeming chemistry with Tank. It didn't work out very well, and assets had to be used to correct it, but the term wasn't too bad. I think he'll stay away from those from here on out. I'd take bets Fabbri gets one year contracts the next couple of years to gauge his progress.

Fabbri is definitely in line for some sort of bridge contract given we haven't seen him in almost 2 full years. But I think as long as his recovery is good and he stays healthy he'll be able to get back up to speed.

 

[David Dennison]

Every team has bad contracts, or contracts that are held by under performing players in certain years. If as most can categorize, Steen, Berglund, and Bowmeester are the worst of our contracts, I'd take those any day of the week over other contracts around the league.

Yeah and our roster is pretty set for the next 2-3 seasons, only Edmundson and maybe Fabbri are due moderate raises in this or next offseason. We have cap space to add a O'Reilly sized contract if we wanted to without having to make other moves.

 

[mk80]

Yeah and our roster is pretty set for the next 2-3 seasons, only Edmundson and maybe Fabbri are due moderate raises in this or next offseason. We have cap space to add a O'Reilly sized contract if we wanted to without having to make other moves.

Yes, Edmundson will be getting the larger of the two raises, with Fabbri barely playing in pretty much the last 2 years due to his injuries, he'll be getting a bridge deal for sure. I agree if we make the right moves along with the increased cap space (every bit helps) we are in good position to bring in some help to our offense.

 

[bluesfanforlife1992]

If you take out the benefit of hindsight, The contracts he's handed out have been pretty much in line with the market. His most questionable was to Lehtera. He didn't have a large enough sample size to measure his talent and took a chance on continued success with his seeming chemistry with Tank. It didn't work out very well, and assets had to be used to correct it, but the term wasn't too bad. I think he'll stay away from those from here on out. I'd take bets Fabbri gets one year contracts the next couple of years to gauge his progress.

If I was Army, I would do a 2 year deal with Fabbri this contract. 2 thoughts on it.

#1 This gives Fabbri some security especially if he would get injured again.

#2 If we sign him 2 years, say he comes back with similar numbers as roughly 20 goals 40-45 pts over 82 season average, you have for cheap on another year if something would happen injury wise.

But I can see a 1 year deal too.

 

[TruBlu]

If I was Army, I would do a 2 year deal with Fabbri this contract. 2 thoughts on it.

#1 This gives Fabbri some security especially if he would get injured again.

#2 If we sign him 2 years, say he comes back with similar numbers as roughly 20 goals 40-45 pts over 82 season average, you have for cheap on another year if something would happen injury wise.

But I can see a 1 year deal too.

I personally would do a 1 year deal. As an RFA, Fabbri really has no choice in the matter, it mostly depends on who files for arbitration first. I'd do 1 year in case the injury flares up again or his speed decreases. Sure, he could return to form (I hope), but either way you aren't looking at a lot of money difference between the 1 or 2 year contract. It mainly would be to protect the club.

 

[yogintheaveragebears]

I think that there are fair criticisms of Army (mostly signing middling, aging, replaceable talent to medium/large deals), but trading away Shatty and Stastny at the deadline arent one of them. The Blues roster has shed a lot of good veteran players since 15-16 when we lost in the conference finals (in addition to Fabbri injuries and the decline of former key guys like Bouw/Steen), I think he was right to make the call that we were better off re-tooling for a couple of years rather than going for it with worse odds than the year before.

IMO, despite missing the playoffs, the Blues seem to be on more stable footing going forward than we were a year ago at this point. Addition of Schenn, emergence of Dunn (and even continued development of Edmundson/Parayko), more cap space to add a player, better depth, and some high potential young guys in our back pocket who could contribute (Thomas, Kyrou, even throw Fabbri in there since he hasnt played in a year and a half).

I feel like we could even say the acuiring/emergence of schenn

 

[Brian39]

About Fabbri, he is not arbitration eligible. He needs 2 more pro seasons before he can go to arbitration. The Blues hold absolutely all of the leverage and can essentially sign him to whatever number or term they think is appropriate. Going to Europe would essentially end his NHL career as he wouldn't become an NHL UFA for 5 more seasons and playing in Europe would do very little to ease the injury concerns. He's not getting an offer sheet and we won't be penciling him in to a large enough role that we can't afford a camp holdout. A contract holdout would hurt Fabbri much more than it would hurt the Blues The only limitation to how much we can low ball him is the damage a ridiculously low offer would do to the relationship long term. I'm not saying we should low ball the hell out of him. Even in a cap league, there is absolutely value to keeping players happy and signalling to them that you care about their long term financial security. But the ball is completely in our court and the AAV will be reasonable at whatever term we want to do.

I think we should go two years and I think it is best for both parties. It prevents us from having to make a tough decision if he stays healthy and has a great year. If that happened, there would still be risk in going long term, but he would absolutely get a decent raise on another bridge deal. Even if it costs us more in the long term, I'd be more comfortable with a multi-year extension after 2 years of post-injury data. May as well control the cost of that 2nd year while you get that data. From his perspective, a 2 year deal offers a good amount of financial security in the worst case scenario that he injures the same knee again. It might delay a big payday, but it also ensures that in the worst case scenario, he's leaving the game with about 25-35% more career earnings than he would if he got catastrophically injured on a 1 year deal. It also gives him an extra year of paychecks that he can aggressively save after the reality of a career-ending injury kicks in.

 

[Brian39]

Having the benefit of hindsight, I'm actually more okay with the Berglund contract than Sobotka's. Berglund has shown the ability to score. I think his recent injury problems have really hampered his numbers. We have two seasons now where he's been sluggish coming out of the gate, but has eventually turned it on after he's had time to recover. That could turn out to be a very good contract if he can stay healthy. Sobotka hasn't shown anything since getting signed. He's completely underperformed in every facet of the game that he used to excel in. He doesn't look like the player we used to know. Maybe a change of scenery would help him, but I take what Berglund brings over him.

I don't mind Sobotka's contract because I have been operating under the assumption that he will be moved this summer. The term and AAV make it a moveable contract that shouldn't cost us an asset to do so. We might not get a ton for him, but it should be easy to get a late round pick or throw him into a larger package to make cap numbers work. I agree that his on-ice play has been underwhelming, but he was still better than the options behind him last year for the middle 6. I just don't think his contract has or will handcuff Army's ability to do anything with the roster.

 

[Brian39]

Yeah and our roster is pretty set for the next 2-3 seasons, only Edmundson and maybe Fabbri are due moderate raises in this or next offseason. We have cap space to add a O'Reilly sized contract if we wanted to without having to make other moves.

Yeah, we're really only in a cap crunch and in need of getting creative if we win the Tavares jackpot. Even then, it shouldn't take too much creatively to make the cap work both in the short term and long term.

I think I failed to articulate my point earlier. I'm not trying to argue that Army is a bad negotiator or that I don't trust him to handle contract signings. I think he is an above average GM in terms of contract negotiations, but (like every GM) he isn't perfect. I was just pointing out the one real gripe I have with his negotiating habits, which is fairly minor in the grand scheme of things.

 

[GoldenSeal]

One thing I don't get is, why didn't they dump Sobotka and Berglund and resign Stastny?

 

[Zamadoo]

One thing I don't get is, why didn't they dump Sobotka and Berglund and resign Stastny?

Army must have wanted a 1st round pick and wasn't willing to include top prospects with Berglund/Sobotka.

Edit: Also, Stastny was pending UFA, and Sobotka/Berglund still had term and could be dealt later.

 

[Alklha]

One thing I don't get is, why didn't they dump Sobotka and Berglund and resign Stastny?

As @Zamadoo says, we were looking for a 1st round pick at the deadline. The rumour mill had us shopping both Berglund and Sobotka, with talk of a high asking price. Then Stastny was moved, we got a first, and all the rumours about other players died. Armstrong was pretty open about trying to bring someone in and it not happening.

We weren't really sellers at the deadline, we were trying to accomplish a goal.

 

[GoldenSeal]

In short, we traded a top 6 Center, a position that lacks serious depth, who is currently killing it in the playoffs (6G, 9A for 15 points @ +5) for... a draft pick?

No wonder the Blues can't get anywhere. I get that it's a deep draft, but it's this kind of wash-rinse-repeat tactic that keeps the Blues from taking the next step. By the time the draft pick is serviceable (which could be years), the window is either closed or, if you're lucky, just opening. The Blues need to be more concerned with getting rid of players like Berglund and Sobotka, resign players like Stastny and give the prospects they already have in the system like Kyrou a chance in the NHL, but that's not going to happen when you've got retreads and past their prime players holding up roster real estate.