How long can Berube and Armstrong keep their positions?

[execwrite1]

I've bashed Armstrong but, to be fair - he won the only Stanley Cup in Blues history. If that buys him some long-term security with Tom Stillman, so be it.

This team is way better than I expected. Small sample size so far but there are many good things happening. Armstrong maybe could have extended the Cup team a little longer, and letting Petro go was a mistake.

But he turned Vladi and O'Reilly into valuable picks. I don't like the Binnington contract but if he truly has found himself and plays like this all year, it was a great move by Armstrong.

Krug has been brutal up to now but he turned his game around and if he stays healthy he will be a very important part of the team.

Armstrong and Berube are here to stay for a while longer and that brings stability - something the Blues have sorely lacked in their long and glorious history of hockey in St. Louis.

 

[PocketNines]

This past week Mr. Old Boys did a sad little softball interview with Frank Severalli. The questions were along the lines of "during the time you are being so awesome, how are you feeling about that?" and "You're amazing, what's that like?"

Armstrong is so out of his depth. He claims two and only to alternatives. A) the current explicit, stated strategy to be a .500 club and draft around #12, and B) the team tanking for "12 or 13 years" whereupon the attendance would be 5,000 or 6,000 people and Blues hockey would die. Nobody challenges him on this outlandish framing of options – Severalli is trying to worm his tongue a little deeper throughout the interview – but he stated the Blues are following the LA Kings turnaround model. Severalli's tongue, too snug where it is, can't point out that the Kings kept their anchor #1 defenseman and he plays the second most minutes in the NHL. Severalli of course didn't point either out that the Kings have recently picked 2, 5 and 8 overall. The Armstrong situation is basically you have an idiot who can never be challenged.

The other reason Armstrong often cites is that his players are too good currently to tank. As if his hands are tied for being stuck at .500 (HE TIED THEM) and there can be no reconfiguring.

If the team ever gets good again, these players aren't going to be on that team. There's no point in investing in these people. The coach, GM, players, will all be new the next time the Blues are good. But due to inability to accept this, the duration will extend.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

This past week Mr. Old Boys did a sad little softball interview with Frank Severalli. The questions were along the lines of "during the time you are being so awesome, how are you feeling about that?" and "You're amazing, what's that like?"

Armstrong is so out of his depth. He claims two and only to alternatives. A) the current explicit, stated strategy to be a .500 club and draft around #12, and B) the team tanking for "12 or 13 years" whereupon the attendance would be 5,000 or 6,000 people and Blues hockey would die. Nobody challenges him on this outlandish framing of options – Severalli is trying to worm his tongue a little deeper throughout the interview – but he stated the Blues are following the LA Kings turnaround model. Severalli's tongue, too snug where it is, can't point out that the Kings kept their anchor #1 defenseman and he plays the second most minutes in the NHL. Severalli of course didn't point either out that the Kings have recently picked 2, 5 and 8 overall. The Armstrong situation is basically you have an idiot who can never be challenged.

The other reason Armstrong often cites is that his players are too good currently to tank. As if his hands are tied for being stuck at .500 (HE TIED THEM) and there can be no reconfiguring.

If the team ever gets good again, these players aren't going to be on that team. There's no point in investing in these people. The coach, GM, players, will all be new the next time the Blues are good. But due to inability to accept this, the duration will extend.

Armstrong isn't going to come out and say, "I plan to tank. We'll be bad for a couple years." But you can see him trade Tarasenko, ROR, Barbashev, Acciari for futures. I suspect we'll see more of the same this year, trading veteran assets for futures. What else would you have him do?

Its a little amusing to see him being criticized for the Blues not being bad enough. What a terrible GM.

I also think you're ignoring the fact that Armstrong is being very politic in the interview, but still alluding to teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa, Arizona that seem to be perpetually rebuilding, or ended up having a rebuild take a ridiculously long time.

Serious question:
What are the differences between the Kings' rebuild and Buffalo or Edmonton? I think the answer to this is what Armstrong is talking about.

One answer is that Doughty is still there, as you pointed out. So...the principle is for the Blues to try and keep its best players during the rebuild, some kind of core, rather than go scorched earth and try to be bad on purpose. When I look back on Edmonton or Buffalo, what core veterans did they keep?

Its debatable whether the Blues have anyone like today's version of Doughty, but probably guys like Faulk, Binnington, Thomas and Buchnevich are the Blues' answer there.

 

[Thallis]

Armstrong isn't going to come out and say, "I plan to tank. We'll be bad for a couple years." But you can see him trade Tarasenko, ROR, Barbashev, Acciari for futures. I suspect we'll see more of the same this year, trading veteran assets for futures. What else would you have him do?

Its a little amusing to see him being criticized for the Blues not being bad enough. What a terrible GM.

I also think you're ignoring the fact that Armstrong is being very politic in the interview, but still alluding to teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa, Arizona that seem to be perpetually rebuilding, or ended up having a rebuild take a ridiculously long time.

Serious question:
What are the differences between the Kings' rebuild and Buffalo or Edmonton? I think the answer to this is what Armstrong is talking about.

One answer is that Doughty is still there, as you pointed out. So...the principle is for the Blues to try and keep its best players during the rebuild, some kind of core, rather than go scorched earth and try to be bad on purpose. When I look back on Edmonton or Buffalo, what core veterans did they keep?

Its debatable whether the Blues have anyone like today's version of Doughty, but probably guys like Faulk, Binnington, Thomas and Buchnevich are the Blues' answer there.

Doughty & Kopitar are still there, lack of roster and organizational mismanagement, California is a more attractive place to get players to come live.

Not that I've watched the interview, I categorically reject Armstrong's main premise regarding tearing it down. He said he doesn't know if we could survive that, later correcting himself and saying it would be many years with 6k fans. The Blues -did- survive a rebuild to the studs. It was the original move that built the eventual cup roster. This idea that he's putting forth that a rebuild would take 10-12 years is one that applies to organizations rife with bad decisions and management; it's not the typical cycle. And even then, the model Kings had 2 top 5 picks and another at 8. The best way to wallow for 10-12 years is delaying the rebuild and trying to half compete.

 

[Blueston]

Armstrong isn't going to come out and say, "I plan to tank. We'll be bad for a couple years." But you can see him trade Tarasenko, ROR, Barbashev, Acciari for futures. I suspect we'll see more of the same this year, trading veteran assets for futures. What else would you have him do?

Its a little amusing to see him being criticized for the Blues not being bad enough. What a terrible GM.

I also think you're ignoring the fact that Armstrong is being very politic in the interview, but still alluding to teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa, Arizona that seem to be perpetually rebuilding, or ended up having a rebuild take a ridiculously long time.

Serious question:
What are the differences between the Kings' rebuild and Buffalo or Edmonton? I think the answer to this is what Armstrong is talking about.

One answer is that Doughty is still there, as you pointed out. So...the principle is for the Blues to try and keep its best players during the rebuild, some kind of core, rather than go scorched earth and try to be bad on purpose. When I look back on Edmonton or Buffalo, what core veterans did they keep?

Its debatable whether the Blues have anyone like today's version of Doughty, but probably guys like Faulk, Binnington, Thomas and Buchnevich are the Blues' answer there.

Kings also added danault as free agent to supplement fairly early in process. Just dealt for Dubois. There is intentionality to end rebuild quickly, although without cashing in any of top kids.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Armstrong needs to go talk to the fictional Mike Ehrmantraut about the difference between half measures and full measures.

 

[Brian39]

Not that I've watched the interview, I categorically reject Armstrong's main premise regarding tearing it down. He said he doesn't know if we could survive that, later correcting himself and saying it would be many years with 6k fans. The Blues -did- survive a rebuild to the studs. It was the original move that built the eventual cup roster.

I would be stunned if the "we" Army is referring to is the organization as a whole and not the current ownership group of the team. The last rebuild to the studs absolutely killed an ownership group. We can debate whether this current group is more capable of withstanding a rebuild than the last one, but it is undeniable that the last rebuild was an abject failure for the people who owned the franchise at the time.

The Blues aren't relocating and I doubt several years of shit attendance causes a full sale. But it might require taking on a lot more debt and/or selling a significant minority interest in the team.

This idea that he's putting forth that a rebuild would take 10-12 years is one that applies to organizations rife with bad decisions and management; it's not the typical cycle. And even then, the model Kings had 2 top 5 picks and another at 8. The best way to wallow for 10-12 years is delaying the rebuild and trying to half compete.

What is the typical cycle? I see long stretches of losing from all the 'down to the studs' rebuilds I can think of.

The Pens picked in the top 5 for five straight years (with 4 of them being top 2 picks) but were able to prevent the decade-long suck because it got them a generational player. They damn near lost the franchise in the process too and I don't see a Crosby in the next couple drafts.

The Hawks sucked for a decade but squandered most of their top 10 picks until actually committing to a rebuild. They picked 3rd, 7th, 3rd, and 1st overall from 2004 through 2007. Then they missed the playoffs (picking 11th) and then finally made the playoffs in 2009. When they won a playoff round in 2009, it was their first series win since 1996 (and just their 3rd playoff appearance in that time).

The Kings had a 7 year playoff drought from 2002/03 to 2008/09. When they got out of round 1 in 2012, it was their first playoff series win since 2001.

Buffalo is in the midst of a 10+ year playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Wings have a 7 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

Ottawa has a 6 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Devils had a 5 year playoff drought, snuck in to the playoffs as the 8 seed (losing 4-1 in round 1) and then had another 4 year playoff drought before getting in as an actual good team last year. Their round 1 series win was their first series win since going to the Final in 2012.

Edmonton had a 10 year playoff drought until McDavid/Drai dragged them out of complete futility in 2017. Then they missed the playoffs 2 more years before getting back in 2020.

What are the typical down to the studs rebuilds that you point to?

 

[joe galiba]

I would be stunned if the "we" Army is referring to is the organization as a whole and not the current ownership group of the team. The last rebuild to the studs absolutely killed an ownership group. We can debate whether this current group is more capable of withstanding a rebuild than the last one, but it is undeniable that the last rebuild was an abject failure for the people who owned the franchise at the time.

The Blues aren't relocating and I doubt several years of shit attendance causes a full sale. But it might require taking on a lot more debt and/or selling a significant minority interest in the team.



What is the typical cycle? I see long stretches of losing from all the 'down to the studs' rebuilds I can think of.

The Pens picked in the top 5 for five straight years (with 4 of them being top 2 picks) but were able to prevent the decade-long suck because it got them a generational player. They damn near lost the franchise in the process too and I don't see a Crosby in the next couple drafts.

The Hawks sucked for a decade but squandered most of their top 10 picks until actually committing to a rebuild. They picked 3rd, 7th, 3rd, and 1st overall from 2004 through 2007. Then they missed the playoffs (picking 11th) and then finally made the playoffs in 2009. When they won a playoff round in 2009, it was their first series win since 1996 (and just their 3rd playoff appearance in that time).

The Kings had a 7 year playoff drought from 2002/03 to 2008/09. When they got out of round 1 in 2012, it was their first playoff series win since 2001.

Buffalo is in the midst of a 10+ year playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Wings have a 7 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

Ottawa has a 6 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Devils had a 5 year playoff drought, snuck in to the playoffs as the 8 seed (losing 4-1 in round 1) and then had another 4 year playoff drought before getting in as an actual good team last year. Their round 1 series win was their first series win since going to the Final in 2012.

Edmonton had a 10 year playoff drought until McDavid/Drai dragged them out of complete futility in 2017. Then they missed the playoffs 2 more years before getting back in 2020.

What are the typical down to the studs rebuilds that you point to?

I simply cannot see the ownership group accepting the loss of revenue that would occur with the poor attendance from completely tanking, on top of that there is complete uncertainty of TV revenues with the whole Bally's Sports fiasco going, and to top it off there is no guarantee that it would work

 

[simon IC]

Armstrong isn't going to come out and say, "I plan to tank. We'll be bad for a couple years." But you can see him trade Tarasenko, ROR, Barbashev, Acciari for futures. I suspect we'll see more of the same this year, trading veteran assets for futures. What else would you have him do?

Its a little amusing to see him being criticized for the Blues not being bad enough. What a terrible GM.

I also think you're ignoring the fact that Armstrong is being very politic in the interview, but still alluding to teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa, Arizona that seem to be perpetually rebuilding, or ended up having a rebuild take a ridiculously long time.

Serious question:
What are the differences between the Kings' rebuild and Buffalo or Edmonton? I think the answer to this is what Armstrong is talking about.

One answer is that Doughty is still there, as you pointed out. So...the principle is for the Blues to try and keep its best players during the rebuild, some kind of core, rather than go scorched earth and try to be bad on purpose. When I look back on Edmonton or Buffalo, what core veterans did they keep?

Its debatable whether the Blues have anyone like today's version of Doughty, but probably guys like Faulk, Binnington, Thomas and Buchnevich are the Blues' answer there.

I agree, but I would put Parayko in that last sentence instead of Faulk.

 

[GoldenSeal]

If Army's battle plan is to build through drafting, then I don't think he's going to get the time he needs to do that. Winning a Cup is second to an investor losing money on their investment and I'm left wondering how long the investors around Stillman will allow money to be lost while spent to the Cap and not ask for Army's head.

 

[Xerloris]

He was also 55% or better in every underlying metric at 5 on 5, which included being at 59% for expected goals for and high danger chances for. The whole "Petro sucked and wasn't ready to play" argument is nonsense.

Well everyone keeps telling me that if only we still had Petro that would fix the defense and by extention, the team. So if he's so great why were we so awful in the bubble of he can solo carry a shitty defense?

 

[BlueDream]

Well everyone keeps telling me that if only we still had Petro that would fix the defense and by extention, the team. So if he's so great why were we so awful in the bubble of he can solo carry a shitty defense?

lol yes let’s blame the bubble on him, that makes a lot of sense.

A large chunk of the team was coming off Covid and it has been reported the team had very little interest in being there. Even with all of that, they still outplayed the Canucks but when you compare the performances of Demko vs. Binnington, you will see why the Canucks won the series. I guess you didn’t even watch the series.

But hey, your boy Carl Gunnarsson wasn’t good enough to make a difference either. What’s up with that?

 

[Xerloris]

lol yes let’s blame the bubble on him, that makes a lot of sense.

A large chunk of the team was coming off Covid and it has been reported the team had very little interest in being there. Even with all of that, they still outplayed the Canucks but when you compare the performances of Demko vs. Binnington, you will see why the Canucks won the series. I guess you didn’t even watch the series.

But hey, your boy Carl Gunnarsson wasn’t good enough to make a difference either. What’s up with that?

ORRRRRRR maybe just admit that Petro isn't the second coming of Jesus like you have convinced yourselves of.

 

[GoldenSeal]

ORRRRRRR maybe just admit that Petro isn't the second coming of Jesus like you have convinced yourselves of.

While I am absolutely on board with you that Petro is NOT the second coming, I will take a moment to note that Petro is better than ANY Dman we got, bar none, including his lackluster replacement, Krug, by a country mile. Also to note is that Petro's game hasn't dropped or suffered like so many had thought it would. He seems to be doing quite well. That second insanely-designed Cup Ring looks nice on his finger.

On any other level, I think this is all silly and water under the bridge and agree with you assessments.

 

[Xerloris]

While I am absolutely on board with you that Petro is NOT the second coming, I will take a moment to note that Petro is better than ANY Dman we got, bar none, including his lackluster replacement, Krug, by a country mile. Also to note is that Petro's game hasn't dropped or suffered like so many had thought it would. He seems to be doing quite well. That second insanely-designed Cup Ring looks nice on his finger.

On any other level, I think this is all silly and water under the bridge and agree with you assessments.

Yes, he is and I agree but sadly there is nothing that can be done about it.

 

[Celtic Note]

The thing to learn from Petro’s departure is what we need to get our defense to a championship level. It’s been beaten to death, but we don’t have a #1D. You can win with out an elite one (see PIT), but it almost always requires an amazing group of forwards, likely including someone near generational (possibly two). We don’t have either on the horizon and I am not sure how we get either without bottoming out or lucking out.

 

[BrokenFace]

Any potential future rebuild should not be compared to our last rebuild when it comes to finances or organizational health. Our last rebuild came after the full season lockout with an ownership group that wanted to sell the team and made crappy hockey decisions to make the sale easier. It's fine to discuss how a rebuild would affect the bottom line, but it would take a lot of years of being a last place team for attendance to bottom out like it did after the lockout.

 

[Brian39]

Well everyone keeps telling me that if only we still had Petro that would fix the defense and by extention, the team. So if he's so great why were we so awful in the bubble of he can solo carry a shitty defense?

I don't agree that we were. Simply repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. To date, I haven't seen a compelling argument that the team was bad.

We noticeably outplayed Vancouver. We outshot them 229 to 165 in that series and 172 to 129 at 5 on 5. We were 54% or better in all of shots, corsi, fenwick, expected goals, scoring chances, and high danger chances. That is true at both 5 on 5 and in all situations.

Binner went 0-3 with a a SV% of just .800 while Markstrom went 4-2 with a SV% of .930. That's your series.

You just aren't going to win in the playoffs when the opposing goalie gets hot and your goalie allows a goal every 5 shots. Binner's GSAA in all situations for the series was -4.73 despite only playing 149 minutes. You can't spot the other team 2 goals above expected per night and win in the playoffs.

Vancouver was opportunistic, we didn't bury enough chances, and I wouldn't say that we looked quite like a President's trophy winner. But the notion that we were 'so awful' isn't remotely true. That is just a feelings over facts narrative you have spun yourself.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

I would be stunned if the "we" Army is referring to is the organization as a whole and not the current ownership group of the team. The last rebuild to the studs absolutely killed an ownership group. We can debate whether this current group is more capable of withstanding a rebuild than the last one, but it is undeniable that the last rebuild was an abject failure for the people who owned the franchise at the time.

The Blues aren't relocating and I doubt several years of shit attendance causes a full sale. But it might require taking on a lot more debt and/or selling a significant minority interest in the team.



What is the typical cycle? I see long stretches of losing from all the 'down to the studs' rebuilds I can think of.

The Pens picked in the top 5 for five straight years (with 4 of them being top 2 picks) but were able to prevent the decade-long suck because it got them a generational player. They damn near lost the franchise in the process too and I don't see a Crosby in the next couple drafts.

The Hawks sucked for a decade but squandered most of their top 10 picks until actually committing to a rebuild. They picked 3rd, 7th, 3rd, and 1st overall from 2004 through 2007. Then they missed the playoffs (picking 11th) and then finally made the playoffs in 2009. When they won a playoff round in 2009, it was their first series win since 1996 (and just their 3rd playoff appearance in that time).

The Kings had a 7 year playoff drought from 2002/03 to 2008/09. When they got out of round 1 in 2012, it was their first playoff series win since 2001.

Buffalo is in the midst of a 10+ year playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Wings have a 7 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

Ottawa has a 6 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Devils had a 5 year playoff drought, snuck in to the playoffs as the 8 seed (losing 4-1 in round 1) and then had another 4 year playoff drought before getting in as an actual good team last year. Their round 1 series win was their first series win since going to the Final in 2012.

Edmonton had a 10 year playoff drought until McDavid/Drai dragged them out of complete futility in 2017. Then they missed the playoffs 2 more years before getting back in 2020.

What are the typical down to the studs rebuilds that you point to?

Sports fans have some fairy-tale view of complete rebuilds. I'm on a forum for an NFL team and the fans there suffer the same delusion. I think it is easier to pull of a tear down/complete rebuild in the NFL because the typical draft choice either produces or is gone in a span of about three years and can't languish in the minors with the indefinite hope they will turn the corner. Of course, the typical career is also over much quicker which leads to an increased roster churn whether they want it or not. I won't even get into the impact of their TV contract, revenue sharing, and how the NFL salary cap impacts all this, other than the fact that it speeds up a verdict on whether a rebuild works or not.

In that fairy tale world of rebuilding, GMs hit it big on all the early round draft choices, nobody gets hurt and has their career slowed, stalled, or ended prematurely, and the organization and its fans are patient enough to allow the process to work out. Call me cynical,, but all those stars rarely align. My guess is that if that course was plotted, the best case is seeing results in about 3 years unless the minors are stocked with a bunch of "lightning in a bottle" prospects when the rebuild starts. But, if the minors are stocked, why rebuild and not just phase the younger talent in quicker and create a constant roster churn of swapping out vets just past their prime?

If the best case is 3 years, I guess the nominal case is probably more like 7 or 8 unless the team screws it up. And all it takes to derail a rebuild is a few early round draft choices to go nowhere or a career hampering or ending injury to someone they are counting on, and the rebuild almost goes back to square one or two.

 

[Brian39]

The thing to learn from Petro’s departure is what we need to get our defense to a championship level. It’s been beaten to death, but we don’t have a #1D. You can win with out an elite one (see PIT), but it almost always requires an amazing group of forwards, likely including someone near generational (possibly two). We don’t have either on the horizon and I am not sure how we get either without bottoming out or lucking out.

I think that you always need luck to land a stud D man in the draft and that is true no matter how early you pick. There is a long list of consensus stud D prospects drafted top 5 who haven't turned into franchise players. Here are all the D drafted top 5 from 2010-2020:

Gudbranson (3rd), Larsson (4th), Murray (2nd), Reinhart (4th), M Rielly (5th), S Jones (4th), Ekblad (1st), Hanifin (5th), Juolevi (5th), Heiskanen (3rd), Makar (4th), Dahlin (1st), Byram (4th), Sanderson (5th).

I see at least as many rebuild ruiners (Gudbranson, Murray, Reinhart, Juolevi) as I see high end #1 D men (Ekblad, Heiskanen, Makar, Dahlin). I'm reserving judgment on what Byram/Sanderson will develop into since they are still young, but Larsson, Rielly, Jones, and Hanifin are all nice players that are good pieces but not the type of guy we are talking about as being worth stripping down your team to the studs.

Going back to the Petro draft, you had 4 guys drafted in the top 5 in a draft that was unique in the number of perceived elite D prospects. Doughty and Petro turned into clear franchise D men (2nd and 4th) while Bogosian and L Schenn (3rd and 5th) never even got close to that status. We have our own experience with a 1st overall D man who failed to meet expectations despite being the consensus #1 selection at the time.

I think you need draft 'luck' no matter where you pick and I don't think that drafting in the top 5 is the only way to get stud D absent blind luck.

Looking around the league, I see a lot of damn good D that were either non-top 10 picks or are playing for a team that didn't draft them. 4 of the of the top 5 Norris vote getters last year fit that description. 3 of 5 in 2016, 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2022.

Again, I'm not saying that picking early doesn't offer an advantage or better odds of landing such a guy. Picking earlier is always better. But it doesn't offer a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination and I don't think that you are limited to lucking out otherwise. I think that building up a big war chest of positive-value futures assets and packaging some in trades is very much a viable strategy that isn't based simply on luck.

 

[Thallis]

I would be stunned if the "we" Army is referring to is the organization as a whole and not the current ownership group of the team. The last rebuild to the studs absolutely killed an ownership group. We can debate whether this current group is more capable of withstanding a rebuild than the last one, but it is undeniable that the last rebuild was an abject failure for the people who owned the franchise at the time.

The Blues aren't relocating and I doubt several years of shit attendance causes a full sale. But it might require taking on a lot more debt and/or selling a significant minority interest in the team.



What is the typical cycle? I see long stretches of losing from all the 'down to the studs' rebuilds I can think of.

The Pens picked in the top 5 for five straight years (with 4 of them being top 2 picks) but were able to prevent the decade-long suck because it got them a generational player. They damn near lost the franchise in the process too and I don't see a Crosby in the next couple drafts.

The Hawks sucked for a decade but squandered most of their top 10 picks until actually committing to a rebuild. They picked 3rd, 7th, 3rd, and 1st overall from 2004 through 2007. Then they missed the playoffs (picking 11th) and then finally made the playoffs in 2009. When they won a playoff round in 2009, it was their first series win since 1996 (and just their 3rd playoff appearance in that time).

The Kings had a 7 year playoff drought from 2002/03 to 2008/09. When they got out of round 1 in 2012, it was their first playoff series win since 2001.

Buffalo is in the midst of a 10+ year playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Wings have a 7 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

Ottawa has a 6 year (and counting) playoff drought and are currently on the outside of the playoff picture looking in.

The Devils had a 5 year playoff drought, snuck in to the playoffs as the 8 seed (losing 4-1 in round 1) and then had another 4 year playoff drought before getting in as an actual good team last year. Their round 1 series win was their first series win since going to the Final in 2012.

Edmonton had a 10 year playoff drought until McDavid/Drai dragged them out of complete futility in 2017. Then they missed the playoffs 2 more years before getting back in 2020.

What are the typical down to the studs rebuilds that you point to?

This relies on a core assumption that the missing the playoffs multiple years in a row is where the beginning of a rebuild is. Rebuilds typically begin after extended periods of mediocrity until a manager can get buy in for a real strip to the studs rebuild. For example, we are not in a rebuild right now. We are likely to be in our 2nd straight year of missing the playoffs. If we were to start an official one in 2-3 years that would be our 5th year of missing the playoffs with no end in sight.

The Devils are actually the perfect example of this: within that 5 first year playoff drought, the Devils still had or acquired Brodeur, Elias, Jagr, Corey Schnieder, Hall, Cammaleri, and Henrique. They were trying to compete, but players didn't pan out or got injured.

Ottawa still had Stone and Karlsson on their roster until 2018-2019.

Detroit was coasting on Zetterberg's final years and didn't try to improve the team as he left, but they still finished in the middle of the league in 2017-2018. They weren't really stripped down to the studs until 2018-2019 and are 1 points out of a playoff spot with a game in hand despite bad lottery luck and moving too quickly on signing veterans.

Other successful rebuilds:

The Florida Panthers Drafted Huberdeau, Barkov, and Ekblad 3 years in a row and won the atlantic in 2015-2016: Ekblad's 19 year old season.

Toronto had a string of mediocre seasons around the previous lockout, bottomed out in 2013-2014 and were back to 95 points in 2016-2017.

Tampa bottomed out from 07-08 to 09-10 and were a 100 point team in 2011. They hit some bumps in development and had some bad years in between, but Tampa's cup wins were absolutely built on that original foundation.

The point is that the way I see it is most of these long playoff droughts happen because teams are okay with just competing for the playoffs when they shouldn't be. My number one concern basically since our window closed after covid has been that we would commit to mediocrity and making it work with what little we have before we finally decide to rebuild. It only serves to delay and lose goodwill with the core fanbase.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

If Pietro had been picked instead of Bogosian, I have often wondered what the Blues would have done. Bogosian was the consensus.

I remember the Blues had talked up Schenn a bit, which at the time seemed like a bit of smokescreen to me. I’m not ashamed ti admit I was interested in Filatov. Were guys like Carlson or EK anywhere on their radar?

 

[STL fan in MN]

If Pietro had been picked instead of Bogosian, I have often wondered what the Blues would have done. Bogosian was the consensus.

I remember the Blues had talked up Schenn a bit, which at the time seemed like a bit of smokescreen to me. I’m not ashamed ti admit I was interested in Filatov. Were guys like Carlson or EK anywhere on their radar?

Based on what I recall from the behind the scenes videos the Blues put out from that draft, the choice was between Petro and Schenn. Smarts or brawn? They went with the right choice. I don’t think Karlsson or Carlson were remotely in consideration at 4th overall but damn did that end up being an insane draft for d-men.

 

[Celtic Note]

I think that you always need luck to land a stud D man in the draft and that is true no matter how early you pick. There is a long list of consensus stud D prospects drafted top 5 who haven't turned into franchise players. Here are all the D drafted top 5 from 2010-2020:

Gudbranson (3rd), Larsson (4th), Murray (2nd), Reinhart (4th), M Rielly (5th), S Jones (4th), Ekblad (1st), Hanifin (5th), Juolevi (5th), Heiskanen (3rd), Makar (4th), Dahlin (1st), Byram (4th), Sanderson (5th).

I see at least as many rebuild ruiners (Gudbranson, Murray, Reinhart, Juolevi) as I see high end #1 D men (Ekblad, Heiskanen, Makar, Dahlin). I'm reserving judgment on what Byram/Sanderson will develop into since they are still young, but Larsson, Rielly, Jones, and Hanifin are all nice players that are good pieces but not the type of guy we are talking about as being worth stripping down your team to the studs.

Going back to the Petro draft, you had 4 guys drafted in the top 5 in a draft that was unique in the number of perceived elite D prospects. Doughty and Petro turned into clear franchise D men (2nd and 4th) while Bogosian and L Schenn (3rd and 5th) never even got close to that status. We have our own experience with a 1st overall D man who failed to meet expectations despite being the consensus #1 selection at the time.

I think you need draft 'luck' no matter where you pick and I don't think that drafting in the top 5 is the only way to get stud D absent blind luck.

Looking around the league, I see a lot of damn good D that were either non-top 10 picks or are playing for a team that didn't draft them. 4 of the of the top 5 Norris vote getters last year fit that description. 3 of 5 in 2016, 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2022.

Again, I'm not saying that picking early doesn't offer an advantage or better odds of landing such a guy. Picking earlier is always better. But it doesn't offer a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination and I don't think that you are limited to lucking out otherwise. I think that building up a big war chest of positive-value futures assets and packaging some in trades is very much a viable strategy that isn't based simply on luck.

I don’t disagree about luck. But I would rather buy some lottery tickets and have a shot as opposed to hoping a lottery ticket falls from the sky into our laps and just so happens to be the right one.

I hear what you are saying about draft position too, but again I think there is a higher probability of success for getting your guy.

It took the Blues two tries inside the top five to land their stud D. Currently we haven’t even had one try.

I also think we need a top flight forward unless one of our young guys surprises.

I would rather land more high draft assets than try to win a few more games. I think you are giving yourself more chances at luck with more picks, whether that is in the form of a draft selection or as assets for the rare instance a guy fitting that profile comes along.

 

[joe galiba]

I don’t disagree about luck. But I would rather buy some lottery tickets and have a shot as opposed to hoping a lottery ticket falls from the sky into our laps and just so happens to be the right one.

I hear what you are saying about draft position too, but again I think there is a higher probability of success for getting your guy.

It took the Blues two tries inside the top five to land their stud D. Currently we haven’t even had one try.

I also think we need a top flight forward unless one of our young guys surprises.

I would rather land more high draft assets than try to win a few more games. I think you are giving yourself more chances at luck with more picks, whether that is in the form of a draft selection or as assets for the rare instance a guy fitting that profile comes along.

If you buy 100 lottery tickets vs 5, your chances of winning change from zero to 20 x zero