Reactions to Army's Press Conference

[Celtic Note]

by only focusing on the winners you inadvertently rig the game. what percentage of teams in league had at least 1 top 5 pick during that time period?i i'd suspect most of them.

How is it rigging the game? If the game is to win the Cup, we should outline how to win it, not how to lose it.

 

[Blueston]

How is it rigging the game? If the game is to win the Cup, we should outline how to win it, not how to lose it.

because almost all the teams that won had top 5 pick, but almost all the teams that didn't win had top 5 pick too. so whether you have had one is of zero predictive value.

 

[ezcreepin]

by only focusing on the winners you inadvertently rig the game. what percentage of teams in league had at least 1 top 5 pick during that time period? i'd suspect most of them. EDIT: i looked it up. pittsburgh, washington, minnesota, and st. louis are only teams not to pick in top 5 over past 15 years. pitt, wash, and blues each picked in top 5 in at least 2 of 5 years prior and each won Cup over past 15 years, so they were all in won Cup within 15 years of picking top 5 category. so that leaves minnesota. they are only team to not pick top 5 and not win Cup. so whether you picked top 5 is of no predictive value in determining whether you will win Cup.

Over the course of the day reading what you've been saying, I understand your argument and it's hard to argue otherwise since it's true that nearly every team will or does have a top 5 pick on their roster. So I guess we should reframe the question to be what are the odds of winning with your top 5 pick players while having mid to bad management and coaching vs the odds to win with a group of good players with good to great management and coaching? And for that question I think first of all is probably very reductive and second may not be the right question to ask.

 

[joe galiba]

5 top 5 picks per year, from the 2003 draft until now there were 85 top 5 players who played in the NHL this year, plus a couple who haven't made it yet
32 teams so 85/32 = 2.66 top 5 picks per team on average

 

[Celtic Note]

Because there were no other serious buyers interested in the team aside from Stillman and co., who viewed investing in the Blues as more of a civic good and hobby venture, and his initial offer was rejected as being too low.

Blues are very, very lucky to have the current ownership group (especially the Taylor family). I don’t think we have to worry about the Blues leaving any time soon as long as the Taylors are involved, especially with feelings that were caused by the Rams leaving. I think the Blues, with competent leadership, are probably break even in most non-PO seasons and profitable when PO runs occur.

I don’t think anyone would keep them in St. Louis if they solely focused on maximizing profit, which is why Towerbrook bailed on Checketts.

At that time the Blues had a relatively stagnant valuation. Since then the Blues and the league have seen pretty amazing appreciation.

The Blues were purchased at between $130-180M depending upon how Peabody factored into the price. Their current Forbs estimated valuation is $990M. If someone offer me that return I would take it and run. We are in a different period in the NHL the when Stillman bought.

I would assume there are a healthy number of owners who would be content with a break even proposition given projected appreciation. This would be similar to large scale commercial real estate investors. Use leveraged money. Get the asset to pay the mortgage and then sell the higher appreciated asset for a profit. Now not every owner can afford to float losses in the years they occur. But despite the pandemic having a crushing effect on revenues, Forbs estimates show the Blues were able to make their losses back within 2 years. Pretty remarkable if true given the Forbs estimates in their losses. They probably got a decent interest rate on the loan given both the interest rates at the time and their presumed equity level given the franchise valuation at the time. So it was likely painful, but seemingly manageable. The pandemic is also (hopefully) an outlier event. If we look at their yearly projected income that Forbs provides, even in their 2014 & 2015 years where they bleed money, they didn’t bleed as much as the pandemic. Getting loans to keep them afloat in the future for a few years doesn’t seem like it would be crippling given this information (assuming Forbes is in close proximity to accuracy on its numbers). The caveat being duration will matter.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

If our scouting department is as good as people claim it is, we shouldn't need to bottom out at all because our scouts will always be able to find high-quality players, maybe even "diamonds in the rough," wherever we happen to be picking in the draft. Even if it's the middle of the 1st round or lower. Thus, the goal of the organization should be to go for the playoffs every year knowing whatever happens, the amateur scouting department will be there to keep the pipeline replenished with high-quality prospects to keep us going.

This means Armstrong's current approach is completely sound and, given his body of work, he is well-suited for proper execution of that plan.

If, on the other hand, we decide we're going to bottom out, that will mean 4 years of 50-point teams and we don't return to being competitive until 2035 because it will up to 10 years for our scouting staff to identify players that can contribute at a high level [on top of the highly-touted forward prospects we already have and whatever highly talented players we already have on the roster], and 10 years for Armstrong to be able to mold that into a team capable of competing at a high level once again because he lacks the ability or desire (or maybe both) to make a return to being competitive happen any sooner.

I think that's what I've gleamed out of comments here and what Armstrong said in his press conference, but I'm open to clarifications as needed.

 

[Celtic Note]

5 top 5 picks per year, from the 2003 draft until now there were 85 top 5 players who played in the NHL this year, plus a couple who haven't made it yet
32 teams so 85/32 = 2.66 top 5 picks per team on average

So over a 20 year period, so .133 per year. But our numbers will slightly be off as their were expansions within that timeframe.

Out of those 85, 15 or so were elite contributors to the cup winning teams that selected them. So about 17.5% of those players made significant contributions.

It would be interesting to see how that number looks for elites acquired and also elites drafted outside of the top 5 and 10.

 

[ezcreepin]

I did a "deep dive" into rosters (on elite, shhh) just to see what's happening, and there is one team currently that does not own a top 5 drafted player on their roster. Can you guess who???

That's right! Your NY Islanders! I may have cheated, I don't recall, but they are the only team who 1) Does not own a player drafted in the top 5 and 2) has zero chance at the moment to even draft that player. Congrats for breaking trends New York

 

[The Note]

I did a "deep dive" into rosters (on elite, shhh) just to see what's happening, and there is one team currently that does not own a top 5 drafted player on their roster. Can you guess who???

That's right! Your NY Islanders! I may have cheated, I don't recall, but they are the only team who 1) Does not own a player drafted in the top 5 and 2) has zero chance at the moment to even draft that player. Congrats for breaking trends New York

Honestly the perfect team for that to be the case for.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

If our scouting department is as good as people claim it is, we shouldn't need to bottom out at all because our scouts will always be able to find high-quality players, maybe even "diamonds in the rough," wherever we happen to be picking in the draft. Even if it's the middle of the 1st round or lower. Thus, the goal of the organization should be to go for the playoffs every year knowing whatever happens, the amateur scouting department will be there to keep the pipeline replenished with high-quality prospects to keep us going.

This means Armstrong's current approach is completely sound and, given his body of work, he is well-suited for proper execution of that plan.

If, on the other hand, we decide we're going to bottom out, that will mean 4 years of 50-point teams and we don't return to being competitive until 2035 because it will up to 10 years for our scouting staff to identify players that can contribute at a high level [on top of the highly-touted forward prospects we already have and whatever highly talented players we already have on the roster], and 10 years for Armstrong to be able to mold that into a team capable of competing at a high level once again because he lacks the ability or desire (or maybe both) to make a return to being competitive happen any sooner.

I think that's what I've gleamed out of comments here and what Armstrong said in his press conference, but I'm open to clarifications as needed.

I think that’s fair, with the additional caveat that Armstrong has in the past acquired elite players in trade, or at least Top 5 value players still in their prime years. The point being, as fans we get too fixated on building only through the draft.

ROR, Bouwmeester, Schenn were all important pieces from trades. (Drafting well still matters since that’s your currency).

 

[STL fan in MN]

Honestly the perfect team for that to be the case for.

True. They’re the Mild of the East.

Speaking of the Mild, that made me wonder, what top-5 pick do they have on their roster?? Zach Bogosian.

All of this analysis about top-5 picks and I think it’s really simple. You need elite talent to win the Cup and the best way to get that elite talent is via the top of the draft. It can be acquired other ways (later in the draft, trades, free agency) but clearly the easiest and most efficient way is to bottom out and get top picks.

The Blues are clearly not doing that and won’t do that. I think it’ll lead to them being similar to the Mild and the Blues of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. I think they’ll need a good amount of luck (a few others overperforming their draft positions like Thomas) but I guess we’ll see.

 

[Celtic Note]

True. They’re the Mild of the East.

Speaking of the Mild, that made me wonder, what top-5 pick do they have on their roster?? Zach Bogosian.

All of this analysis about top-5 picks and I think it’s really simple. You need elite talent to win the Cup and the best way to get that elite talent is via the top of the draft. It can be acquired other ways (later in the draft, trades, free agency) but clearly the easiest and most efficient way is to bottom out and get top picks.

The Blues are clearly not doing that and won’t do that. I think it’ll lead to them being similar to the Mild and the Blues of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. I think they’ll need a good amount of luck (a few others overperforming their draft positions like Thomas) but I guess we’ll see.

I am laughing at the auto correct of the Wild, but mild is a fitting nickname.

Also, I agree with what you are saying.

I think that’s fair, with the additional caveat that Armstrong has in the past acquired elite players in trade, or at least Top 5 value players still in their prime years. The point being, as fans we get too fixated on building only through the draft.

ROR, Bouwmeester, Schenn were all important pieces from trades. (Drafting well still matters since that’s your currency).

I would just clarify that while Bo and Schenn are too 5 picks, I wouldn’t call them elite. ROR I would classify as elite however, but really only his peak.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

I don't even think teams need elite talent to win a Cup. I think they need good talent that can perform at an elite level as a group when it counts. Part of that elevation of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is on the individual players on the team, part of it is coaching. But, my definition of elite talent may be more stringent than others.

Even backing off the statement about elite talent, I don't think we have nearly enough good talent nor have we given indications that what talent we have can perform at an elite level for any significant length of time......like four games out of seven or fewer against a team with equal more talent.

I agree with @Celtic Note 's last sentence.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don't even think teams need elite talent to win a Cup. I think they need good talent that can perform at an elite level as a group when it counts. Part of that elevation of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is on the individual players on the team, part of it is coaching.

That's exactly what Armstrong's approach is to building a successful team. I think he's even referenced it in the past. It works if you can get that talent to perform at an elite level, if you can get a "whole is better than the sum of the parts" roster. That's not easy to identify and leads to situations where things don't work like they should, both positively [John LeClair goes to Philadelphia, becomes a 50-goal scorer alongside Eric Lindros] and negatively [Gretzky and Hull, 1995].

It's a low-probability approach, but if you can get it to work you look like a genius. The problem is, it can take a lot of work to try and make it work and it's still low-probability relative to having (more) elite talent on the roster.

 

[Celtic Note]

They also gave tickets away this year, which I haven't seen in quite some time. I got a free ticket for filling out a fan survey (which I gave to a friend because I had a conflict). That was a first for me. Other than a couple 'sorry we messed up your account' tickets I got as a half season-ticket holder, I believe that the last free tickets I got directly from the organization was directly following the lockout.

I also got more emails for ticket deals than I got the last couple years and every time I looked at tickets for games there were more than a few non-resale tickets for sale on Ticketmaster. We may have been at 99.9% attendance this year on paper, but it certainly wasn't from selling all the tickets for face value. That also has a big impact on the bottom line.

I will be interested to see what Forbes has for the Blues economic state for this year.

 

[Xerloris]

[Gretzky and Hull, 1995]

I didn't think they were that bad together. Considering it only lasted 20 some odd games.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I am laughing at the auto correct of the Wild, but mild is a fitting nickname.

I 100% purposely wrote Mild all 3 times because that’s what they are, have always been, will be for the foreseeable future and I knew people would instantly know what team I was referring to.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

That's exactly what Armstrong's approach is to building a successful team. I think he's even referenced it in the past. It works if you can get that talent to perform at an elite level, if you can get a "whole is better than the sum of the parts" roster. That's not easy to identify and leads to situations where things don't work like they should, both positively [John LeClair goes to Philadelphia, becomes a 50-goal scorer alongside Eric Lindros] and negatively [Gretzky and Hull, 1995].

It's a low-probability approach, but if you can get it to work you look like a genius. The problem is, it can take a lot of work to try and make it work and it's still low-probability relative to having (more) elite talent on the roster.

It may just be my definition, but at any given time there are fewer elite players than there are NHL teams and by a significant number. There are more great players, and certainly more good players than that. So the quest to assemble more elite players is futile because of the scarcity, again, using my definition. Then there is the salary cap to deal with.

The major problem with implementing the "whole is better than the sum of the parts" method is that once it leads to success, GM's tend to lower the bar of the talent they need to pull it off. That is not limited to NHL GMs. That may be where we are. GM's tend to be easily convinced of their own genius, even when luck may have been the primary driver of their success.

For the life of me, I have no idea what Army was thinking with our defense when the Petro ship was sailing. Acquiring Faulk, okay provided the rest of the defense gets stronger in our own end somehow. Doubling down with Krug was not exactly a move in that direction. The JBo sudden retirement is often mentioned, but other than the fact it hit like a bolt of lightning, JBo was 36 and not going to be part of the picture much longer. We went from a talented defense that was better than the sum of its parts to defense in name only very quickly and without much to stop it.

 

[Blueswin]

The Blues in the 80's 90's had some great teams but usually under performed because of poor goal tending. Now as we retool we have a so-so line up but the great goaltending is keeping us competitive.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

I 100% purposely wrote Mild all 3 times because that’s what they are, have always been, will be for the foreseeable future and I knew people would instantly know what team I was referring to.

The Minnesota Wild are to hockey what Pace Picante is to salsa.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

other than the fact it hit like a bolt of lightning, JBo was 36 and not going to be part of the picture much longer.

This needs to be repeated every time someone cites JBo going down and the resulting negative impact on everything. He was on a 1-year contract in 2019-20, he wasn't going to be a 3/4 defenseman for the team for another 2-3 years. We were going to have to figure out replacing him pretty soon anyway, for all anyone knows that might have been after 2020 when he called it quits or we didn't bring him back for whatever reason.

 

[Xerloris]

This needs to be repeated every time someone cites JBo going down and the resulting negative impact on everything. He was on a 1-year contract in 2019-20, he wasn't going to be a 3/4 defenseman for the team for another 2-3 years. We were going to have to figure out replacing him pretty soon anyway, for all anyone knows that might have been after 2020 when he called it quits or we didn't bring him back for whatever reason.

Did you by chance watch Jbo play in 2019 and 2020? There is no doubt barring an injury or what actually did happen to him that he could have played easily another 2-3 years on 2nd pairing for us. There is also a big difference in knowing ahead of time that you need to find a replacement compared to when the music stops and you can't find a chair. Which sadly is what happened to us with Jay.

 

[Louie the Blue]

This needs to be repeated every time someone cites JBo going down and the resulting negative impact on everything. He was on a 1-year contract in 2019-20, he wasn't going to be a 3/4 defenseman for the team for another 2-3 years. We were going to have to figure out replacing him pretty soon anyway, for all anyone knows that might have been after 2020 when he called it quits or we didn't bring him back for whatever reason.

The issue isn’t necessarily Bouwmeester being gone, it’s about him being forced to stop play mid-season, leading Armstrong to acquire Scandella and to pay him for a role he shouldn’t be playing or paid for.

Bouwmeester may have retired after 2020 regardless, but that would have given Armstrong some time to plan.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, there is a massive difference between panic replacing Bouwmeester with limited options mid-season and then replacing him at some point in a future off-season, where you'll have an entire free agent class or when there are more trade options available than just deadline rentals.

 

[bleedblue1223]

If our scouting department is as good as people claim it is, we shouldn't need to bottom out at all because our scouts will always be able to find high-quality players, maybe even "diamonds in the rough," wherever we happen to be picking in the draft. Even if it's the middle of the 1st round or lower. Thus, the goal of the organization should be to go for the playoffs every year knowing whatever happens, the amateur scouting department will be there to keep the pipeline replenished with high-quality prospects to keep us going.

This means Armstrong's current approach is completely sound and, given his body of work, he is well-suited for proper execution of that plan.

If, on the other hand, we decide we're going to bottom out, that will mean 4 years of 50-point teams and we don't return to being competitive until 2035 because it will up to 10 years for our scouting staff to identify players that can contribute at a high level [on top of the highly-touted forward prospects we already have and whatever highly talented players we already have on the roster], and 10 years for Armstrong to be able to mold that into a team capable of competing at a high level once again because he lacks the ability or desire (or maybe both) to make a return to being competitive happen any sooner.

I think that's what I've gleamed out of comments here and what Armstrong said in his press conference, but I'm open to clarifications as needed.

Because rebuilding a team is way more than just scouting and drafting.

And for as shitty as we were in 22/23, we still weren't close to bottom 5 bad. To get to bottom 5 bad, you are likely trading Parayko, so that the team doesn't have a proper shutdown pairing, getting rid of Binnington, so that he can't carry the team on his back for stretches, and probably Buchnevich too. I don't think the Buchnevich one really matters that much as far as the long-term risk, I think we should move him.

If we move Binnington, this could go a couple different ways. Hofer could perform at the same level he did as a backup, and like Binnington, he'll prevent us from being a bottom 5 team. The other direction is you just completely f*** his development, and now it's up to Ellis or Zherenko. I'd rather not f*** up the development of a promising young goalie.

We can move Parayko, and replace him with some random 2nd pair quality vet to eat some minutes. Unless we draft a Petro level talent, that's going to be a really shitty environment to develop any defenseman in. That's what the risk is in tanking, it's not about whether the scouts can do their job, it's if the draft that we happen to get a top pick in, happens to have the player available that would be worth being that bad for. And if you don't get someone that will develop regardless of the environment they are in, then you are in trouble. We were really f***ing lucky that Atlanta took Bogosian. Imagine if our #1 and #4 picks were Johnson and Bogosian/Schenn, that's what the risk is.

You seem to be under the assumption that gutting the team to the point of being top 5 pick quality won't have a significant impact on the development of current young players and those picks. Or the possibility of the years of being a top 5 pick team, those drafts just being dogshit.