Who wants to tank?

[HighNote]

The only acceptable scenario where I want to be a playoff team this season is if we acquired a youngish #1 or future #1 defenseman via trade without losing Thomas/Dvorsky. Otherwise, what's the point? Give me a higher draft pick so we can either draft that #1D or use it to have a better chance to trade for one.

 

[joe galiba]

Problem with tanking right now is the rest of the west seems to be horrible as well outside of Vegas, Kings, Canucks, Jets, Stars, Avs. We behind the rest of the teams but we could also sneak into a playoff spot because everyone else sucks

And the Canucks and Jets are the Canucks and Jets, so we know how that ends

 

[BleedBlue14]

"Winning culture" is a myth. It's derived from having an abundance of good players. I don't want the Blues to tear it all down, but moving guys who don't have a future in exchange for picks and younger players is only logical. We're not winning the Cup this year. Why miss out on potentially important assets just to sneak into the playoffs and get waxed in the first round? A couple of games of playoff revenue. Building a contender will make a hell of a lot more money in the long run.

I don’t think winning culture is a myth by any means.

But we have got to ask ourselves, does that culture still exist? And has it been implemented into our current next core going forward? I find it difficult to say yes.

With that I think we also need to ask, are our potentially movable players part of the culture/building blocks? Or are they supplemental pieces to take a team over the top?

I think that’s a question our front office is really needing to establish in the next 2-3 months.

 

[Frenzy31]

I think the true rebuild began in 2005. And we had to pretty much completely move on from the initial core (Johnson, Backes, Oshie, Perron, Berglund....). To a second core of Pie, Tank, JS.... and trades for ROR and Jaybo.... And even then we missed the playoffs 2 years prior to winning it and we had already traded that pick to Phili.

The issue isn't should we tank, because you really can't with this roster. It is truly a bubble roster, even if we were to move out a couple of players at the deadline we still have enough to make the playoffs in the weak west.

Unless you want to go nuke it and move RT, JK, Colt. That is the question. Do you Nuke this roster or make the playoffs? And if you move on from them, We could be looking at 7-10 year playoff draught.

How much better is this team with Sanheim? (F*** You Krug)? Or Can we go add a Hannifin without completely destroying the system. The west is pretty wide open, IMO.

As for winning Culture. I think it is a thing. It is not player based, because the team with the best players doesn't always win. The team with the best record doesn't always even make it past the first round.

Winning Culture is learning to win over an 82 game schedule, while not playing your best hockey until the playoffs and slowing turning it up in March, April, and than really running in May.... That is a winning culture, knowing how to turn it up to get 2 points, when being dominated in a game. How you can go 80% and still win a game...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think plenty of teams over the years have proven that simply making it in yields a real shot at at least a CF appearance. So, that is always the goal.

I think people still overestimate a team's chances as a low seed once they make it in. The teams that are successful from the bottom-4 side, there has to be something unique about the team that says "yeah, they may be a bottom-4 seed, but" and then a solid explanation for why it's really better and capable of that run. That was us in 2019: 3rd seed in the Central, would have been 5th in the West, but the team that played the 2nd half of the season was light years different from the team that played the 1st half of the season.

Does anyone see something like that from this team? Cause, that's what it's going to take.

Some people on here hold onto the idea that losing and getting a top 10 draft pick means you will win a Cup down the line.

I'm a longtime poster who's pointed out the folly of just getting bad for the sake of loading up on high picks hoping it will all go great. I'm also a longtime poster who's looked at prior rosters and noticed the holes in them and seen how delusional hope that everything gets better fails spectacularly.

Where is this team really? It's in the 7-10 area in the West. Max upside is 5th, but still 3rd in the Central; max downside is 12th, but still above Chicago and San Jose and Minnesota and one of Anaheim or Seattle. Or maybe both. Point is, this isn't your 2005-06 squad by any stretch, but it's also not the 2011-12 squad either. Or even a season or two away from being at that level.

Maybe having a little more respect for the winning culture the Blues have cultivated for over half a century isnt a bad idea.

Winning culture? Cultivated for over half a century? The Blues all-time record through the 1989-90 season was under .500; after it went under .500 during the 1975-76 season, it didn't get over .500 until 1999-2000. After the 1986 conference finals when we lost to Calgary in 7, the next 32 years saw the Blues make 25 playoff appearances; they went 13-12 in the 1st round with infamous losses like the 7-game series to Vancouver in 1995. Even the "got out of the 1st round" trips saw the Blues bow to a 27-41-12 Hawks team in 1989, get f***ing in Game 7 in Chicago in 1990, lose to Minnesota in 6 games in 1991, get f***ing routed in Game 7 in Toronto in 1993, lose to Vancouver in 7 games in 1995, lose to San Jose with home ice advantage as the President's Trophy winners in 2000, shit away a 3-1 series lead in a 7-game loss to Vancouver in 2003, shit away 2-0 series leads against Los Angeles in 2013 and Chicago in 2014, then get f***ing wiped by Minnesota in 5 games in 2015. Not to mention, upsetting Minnesota in 2017 only to shit away home ice advantage against Nashville and then pissing away a playoff spot down the stretch in 2018 due to shitty, indifferent play by the team in general and Shaky Jake Allen specifically.

That's a winning culture? No, at best it was a culture of "do well during the regular season, f*** up royally in the playoffs when the spotlight shined and it was time to step up." It was a losing mentality, a we're not good enough to do this mindset that gripped the organization and that turning over the roster in swaths never fixed. This "winning culture" is a very recent development, one that existed in 2019 and into 2020 before the world went to hell (and perhaps some of the 2021-22 season) and which I'd argue also no longer exists. If anything, we're back to that 1990s, 2000s play to the level of our competition, hope someone feels sorry for us and we win games we shouldn't culture.

 

[Blueston]

I think people still overestimate a team's chances as a low seed once they make it in. The teams that are successful from the bottom-4 side, there has to be something unique about the team that says "yeah, they may be a bottom-4 seed, but" and then a solid explanation for why it's really better and capable of that run. That was us in 2019: 3rd seed in the Central, would have been 5th in the West, but the team that played the 2nd half of the season was light years different from the team that played the 1st half of the season.

Does anyone see something like that from this team? Cause, that's what it's going to take.


I'm a longtime poster who's pointed out the folly of just getting bad for the sake of loading up on high picks hoping it will all go great. I'm also a longtime poster who's looked at prior rosters and noticed the holes in them and seen how delusional hope that everything gets better fails spectacularly.

Where is this team really? It's in the 7-10 area in the West. Max upside is 5th, but still 3rd in the Central; max downside is 12th, but still above Chicago and San Jose and Minnesota and one of Anaheim or Seattle. Or maybe both. Point is, this isn't your 2005-06 squad by any stretch, but it's also not the 2011-12 squad either. Or even a season or two away from being at that level.


Winning culture? Cultivated for over half a century? The Blues all-time record through the 1989-90 season was under .500; after it went under .500 during the 1975-76 season, it didn't get over .500 until 1999-2000. After the 1986 conference finals when we lost to Calgary in 7, the next 32 years saw the Blues make 25 playoff appearances; they went 13-12 in the 1st round with infamous losses like the 7-game series to Vancouver in 1995. Even the "got out of the 1st round" trips saw the Blues bow to a 27-41-12 Hawks team in 1989, get f***ing in Game 7 in Chicago in 1990, lose to Minnesota in 6 games in 1991, get f***ing routed in Game 7 in Toronto in 1993, lose to Vancouver in 7 games in 1995, lose to San Jose with home ice advantage as the President's Trophy winners in 2000, shit away a 3-1 series lead in a 7-game loss to Vancouver in 2003, shit away 2-0 series leads against Los Angeles in 2013 and Chicago in 2014, then get f***ing wiped by Minnesota in 5 games in 2015. Not to mention, upsetting Minnesota in 2017 only to shit away home ice advantage against Nashville and then pissing away a playoff spot down the stretch in 2018 due to shitty, indifferent play by the team in general and Shaky Jake Allen specifically.

That's a winning culture? No, at best it was a culture of "do well during the regular season, f*** up royally in the playoffs when the spotlight shined and it was time to step up." It was a losing mentality, a we're not good enough to do this mindset that gripped the organization and that turning over the roster in swaths never fixed. This "winning culture" is a very recent development, one that existed in 2019 and into 2020 before the world went to hell (and perhaps some of the 2021-22 season) and which I'd argue also no longer exists. If anything, we're back to that 1990s, 2000s play to the level of our competition, hope someone feels sorry for us and we win games we shouldn't culture.

First, this is a phenomenal post all around. Thank you.

Second, given what you described, I am curious how would you proceed if you were in Army’s chair?

 

[Brian39]

I think people still overestimate a team's chances as a low seed once they make it in. The teams that are successful from the bottom-4 side, there has to be something unique about the team that says "yeah, they may be a bottom-4 seed, but" and then a solid explanation for why it's really better and capable of that run. That was us in 2019: 3rd seed in the Central, would have been 5th in the West, but the team that played the 2nd half of the season was light years different from the team that played the 1st half of the season.

Does anyone see something like that from this team? Cause, that's what it's going to take.

To be clear, my view of this team is that we should absolutely be sellers at the deadline. Any pending UFA should be out the door (although I'd entertain extending Kap for the right price/term). I'd deal either of Hayes or Saad for a non-overpay offer of pure futures (trade protection and term make these complicated/unlikely, but I'd make the deal if there is one to be made there). The rest of the non-untouchable potential trades make more sense to me in the summer, but if the right deal comes along mid-season I wouldn't use the potential of playoffs this year as a reason not to pull the trigger.

With all that said, I do see something like that in our team.

Binnington could 100% steal a series or two. When he is hot, he is damn near unbeatable and he has demonstrated that 'clutch' gene in the past. He's not a guy who is generally okay for long stretches. he very much could be a guy who gets blown up twice while giving you 5 games of God-tier play in a 7 game series. That alone can win a couple rounds.

We've also seen Thomas, Buch, and Kyrou look unstoppable when they are rolling and feeling confident.

I wouldn't bet on it, but it wouldn't shock me to see the offense and Binner simultaneously get hot down the stretch and look like a problem. Not a good enough to win 4 rounds and the potential of that isn't enough to avoid selling. But those two things happening in unison would make me view them as a team that wasn't guaranteed blowout fodder.

 

[DatDude44]

I call bs on that, my friend. Maybe without Petro we are worse in previous season and get higher lottery pick and … no way to tell. He was great player and indispensable piece of that team, but for the same reason that I am ok with bad moves prior bc Cup redeemed everything before as part of what it took to get there so no need to proclaim more.

Ok.... but still.....We don't win the cup, without Alex pietrangelo

 

[Blueston]

Ok.... but still.....We don't win the cup, without Alex pietrangelo

What does that mean? Like if you subtract him from roster and replace him with minor league call up? Sure, I think you could say that about several folks on Cup team.

 

[BlueDream]

What does that mean? Like if you subtract him from roster and replace him with minor league call up? Sure, I think you could say that about several folks on Cup team.

Because saying a “minor league call up” is a cheap way of trying to downplay his importance.

Replace him with any defenseman on our current roster and the majority of defensemen around the NHL and you’d still notice the effects.

 

[HighNote]

Where is this team really? It's in the 7-10 area in the West. Max upside is 5th, but still 3rd in the Central; max downside is 12th, but still above Chicago and San Jose and Minnesota and one of Anaheim or Seattle. Or maybe both.

I agree with most of your post, so this might seem nit picky and off-topic, but I had to say something because I disagree big time.

I would be shocked if Minnesota did not pass us by the half way point of this season. And to be honest, I could see it happening even earlier than that. Perhaps we view Minnesota as a team very differently, but I feel as though the first two months to their season they under-performed. I see them as a probable playoff team whereas we are more like a 40-50% chance.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think people still overestimate a team's chances as a low seed once they make it in. The teams that are successful from the bottom-4 side, there has to be something unique about the team that says "yeah, they may be a bottom-4 seed, but" and then a solid explanation for why it's really better and capable of that run. That was us in 2019: 3rd seed in the Central, would have been 5th in the West, but the team that played the 2nd half of the season was light years different from the team that played the 1st half of the season.

Does anyone see something like that from this team? Cause, that's what it's going to take.


I'm a longtime poster who's pointed out the folly of just getting bad for the sake of loading up on high picks hoping it will all go great. I'm also a longtime poster who's looked at prior rosters and noticed the holes in them and seen how delusional hope that everything gets better fails spectacularly.

Where is this team really? It's in the 7-10 area in the West. Max upside is 5th, but still 3rd in the Central; max downside is 12th, but still above Chicago and San Jose and Minnesota and one of Anaheim or Seattle. Or maybe both. Point is, this isn't your 2005-06 squad by any stretch, but it's also not the 2011-12 squad either. Or even a season or two away from being at that level.


Winning culture? Cultivated for over half a century? The Blues all-time record through the 1989-90 season was under .500; after it went under .500 during the 1975-76 season, it didn't get over .500 until 1999-2000. After the 1986 conference finals when we lost to Calgary in 7, the next 32 years saw the Blues make 25 playoff appearances; they went 13-12 in the 1st round with infamous losses like the 7-game series to Vancouver in 1995. Even the "got out of the 1st round" trips saw the Blues bow to a 27-41-12 Hawks team in 1989, get f***ing in Game 7 in Chicago in 1990, lose to Minnesota in 6 games in 1991, get f***ing routed in Game 7 in Toronto in 1993, lose to Vancouver in 7 games in 1995, lose to San Jose with home ice advantage as the President's Trophy winners in 2000, shit away a 3-1 series lead in a 7-game loss to Vancouver in 2003, shit away 2-0 series leads against Los Angeles in 2013 and Chicago in 2014, then get f***ing wiped by Minnesota in 5 games in 2015. Not to mention, upsetting Minnesota in 2017 only to shit away home ice advantage against Nashville and then pissing away a playoff spot down the stretch in 2018 due to shitty, indifferent play by the team in general and Shaky Jake Allen specifically.

That's a winning culture? No, at best it was a culture of "do well during the regular season, f*** up royally in the playoffs when the spotlight shined and it was time to step up." It was a losing mentality, a we're not good enough to do this mindset that gripped the organization and that turning over the roster in swaths never fixed. This "winning culture" is a very recent development, one that existed in 2019 and into 2020 before the world went to hell (and perhaps some of the 2021-22 season) and which I'd argue also no longer exists. If anything, we're back to that 1990s, 2000s play to the level of our competition, hope someone feels sorry for us and we win games we shouldn't culture.

I don't disagree with many of your points, but when people talk about "winning culture" I think about going from the EJ draft to the Backes captain years. The team got spanked/swept by Vancouver, and then learned how to win...including how to get past either the Kings or Blackhawks (eventually). Those were hard earned lessons. But I don't think there was any institutional "winning culture" going back further than that. That argument, as I understand it, is that there is still some residual "winning knowledge" left from the Cup team that we shouldn't piss away. I'd say its debatable if that knowledge is still on the roster. I think the Blues are just a regular average team now, with obvious flaws.

But embracing a tank on some level communicates to the players/coaches that losing is acceptable. Otherwise, why aren't you trying to win. That is a very insidious psychological message, and I think we've seen multiple teams around the league that have had a hell of a hard time digging back out after letting that idea percolate.

I think that's the rebuild I want - the one where we trade veterans for futures, but still try to be a competitive team. You can lose and not be tanking. Injuries sometimes help that along.

Like Blueston, I'm curious how you would proceed now.

For me: I'd continue to try and trade veterans for futures, including if I can sign an offseason guy or acquisition that i can flip at the deadline. I'd do that for next season. This includes moving Binnington and going cheap in goal. I'd want the team to play a grindy hard-working low-talent style for a couple years, but a feisty competitive style. With shitty/cheap goaltending we probably suck and get a good draft pick. I'm not trying to ruin Hofer hopefully. Hopefully I can cultivate an extra 1st or 2nd (or two). And I expect to hire a new coach within a year or two (maybe sooner) to build the contending roster with.

Getting a good goalie is a lot easier than getting a 1D. That's a task for a later day.

So, I'm pretty much tanking, but in a way that tries to not allow the players to give less than 100%. And hopefully creates a team that the fans can still embrace, that will battle.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

To be clear, my view of this team is that we should absolutely be sellers at the deadline. Any pending UFA should be out the door (although I'd entertain extending Kap for the right price/term). I'd deal either of Hayes or Saad for a non-overpay offer of pure futures (trade protection and term make these complicated/unlikely, but I'd make the deal if there is one to be made there). The rest of the non-untouchable potential trades make more sense to me in the summer, but if the right deal comes along mid-season I wouldn't use the potential of playoffs this year as a reason not to pull the trigger.

With all that said, I do see something like that in our team.

Binnington could 100% steal a series or two. When he is hot, he is damn near unbeatable and he has demonstrated that 'clutch' gene in the past. He's not a guy who is generally okay for long stretches. he very much could be a guy who gets blown up twice while giving you 5 games of God-tier play in a 7 game series. That alone can win a couple rounds.

We've also seen Thomas, Buch, and Kyrou look unstoppable when they are rolling and feeling confident.

I wouldn't bet on it, but it wouldn't shock me to see the offense and Binner simultaneously get hot down the stretch and look like a problem. Not a good enough to win 4 rounds and the potential of that isn't enough to avoid selling. But those two things happening in unison would make me view them as a team that wasn't guaranteed blowout fodder.

I think we nearly saw that vs Colorado before Kadri happened.

I also wouldn't underestimate guys like Blais and Sundqvist in the postseason. How about we get to play as underdogs and the OTHER team lose THEIR starting goalie for a change? Its plausible to see some postseason success. Just not the most likely.

And I agree about selling at the deadline. Moreover, I think that is Armstrong's plan.

 

[TheOrganist]

So in 4 years Petro has morphed from irreplaceable to “yes, important, but not the key cog”…in 2028 it’ll be “key contributor but it could be argued that Robert Bortuzzo played just as vital a role in our 1st Cup”

 

[BlueDream]

So in 4 years Petro has morphed from irreplaceable to “yes, important, but not the key cog”…in 2028 it’ll be “key contributor but it could be argued that Robert Bortuzzo played just as vital a role in our 1st Cup”

Lol you’re not kidding. I mean we have people on this board already arguing that the bigger hole that we “haven’t filled” is Carl Gunnarsson.

 

[Blueston]

Because saying a “minor league call up” is a cheap way of trying to downplay his importance.

Replace him with any defenseman on our current roster and the majority of defensemen around the NHL and you’d still notice the effects.

I think you are missing my point. I called him great player and indispensable part of the team. But what does it mean to say we don‘t win without him? If we subtract maroon maybe we never beat Dallas. Could we have done it without ROR? What about Jaden stealing game against jets? I could go on. Obviously Petro was a top player on that team and will likely end up in hof. why can’t that be enough?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

With all that said, I do see something like that in our team.

Binnington could 100% steal a series or two. When he is hot, he is damn near unbeatable and he has demonstrated that 'clutch' gene in the past. He's not a guy who is generally okay for long stretches. he very much could be a guy who gets blown up twice while giving you 5 games of God-tier play in a 7 game series. That alone can win a couple rounds.

We've also seen Thomas, Buch, and Kyrou look unstoppable when they are rolling and feeling confident.

I wouldn't bet on it, but it wouldn't shock me to see the offense and Binner simultaneously get hot down the stretch and look like a problem. Not a good enough to win 4 rounds and the potential of that isn't enough to avoid selling. But those two things happening in unison would make me view them as a team that wasn't guaranteed blowout fodder.

In other words, for the Blues to get on a near-Cup run:

* Thomas, Buch and Kyrou (and probably a few others) need to start feeling confident and get unstoppable [and I'd argue how unstoppable any line has really looked in the first place],
* Binnington needs to stand on his head and steal a series or two when they're not,
* The team in general just needs to play consistent enough to not be utter shit the 2 games Binnington is utter shit while he's trying to give you 5 games of God-tier play in a 7-game series

That's already asking a hell of a lot - and then you realize you're asking that of a team that's 3-7-1 against teams who are in a playoff spot going into tonight, who split the season series with current #7 Arizona (and got outscored 15-11 excluding ENGs), and for which teh analytics suggest it's a lower-tier team that's going to have to rely on some combination of above-average goaltending and above-average shooting to overcome it's generally shoddy play. That's really asking a hell of a lot, unless this roster can somehow figure out how to start playing consistently well and not have weekly letdowns against bad teams.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Like Blueston, I'm curious how you would proceed now.

For me: I'd continue to try and trade veterans for futures, including if I can sign an offseason guy or acquisition that i can flip at the deadline. I'd do that for next season. This includes moving Binnington and going cheap in goal. I'd want the team to play a grindy hard-working low-talent style for a couple years, but a feisty competitive style. With shitty/cheap goaltending we probably suck and get a good draft pick. I'm not trying to ruin Hofer hopefully. Hopefully I can cultivate an extra 1st or 2nd (or two). And I expect to hire a new coach within a year or two (maybe sooner) to build the contending roster with.

Getting a good goalie is a lot easier than getting a 1D. That's a task for a later day.

So, I'm pretty much tanking, but in a way that tries to not allow the players to give less than 100%. And hopefully creates a team that the fans can still embrace, that will battle.

Well, I wouldn't have signed Parayko to 8/52. Or Thomas to 8/68. Or Kyrou to 8/68. Or Schenn to 8/52. I sure as hell wouldn't have handed out NTCs like they were candy, then complained about being handcuffed and not being able to make moves. I'd have moved Perunovich long ago. I'd have moved Kostin way before it became evident he wasn't going to pan out here. [Which reminds me: 19 games with Detroit this season, 1-1-2. We're really missing out on that.] Probably some other stuff.

But, all those things happened, so here we are.

What's the plan? Well, it's probably some "trade veterans for futures" because ... that's what this roster was built for - but that's low risk, low reward. I don't think anyone's overpaying for Sundqvist, or Vrana, or Blais, or Kapanen based on their seasons to date. I don't think anyone's giving more than a 7th for Bortuzzo. It's papering over the real problems on the roster and within the organization, leaving holes unaddressed. With that in mind, I'd make two major moves:

1. Trade Colton Paryako
2. Trade MV63

That clears out two glaring problem areas - one obvious but everyone wants to pretend is OK, the other not obvious and everyone thinks is better than it really is - and gives us 2 chances to stock up on defense to get this team better positioned near-term, for the long term. It's probably still getting through '24-25, but it's clearing out what's going to be an albatross of a contract and having a shot to stock up one more time and add roster guys for the long-term.

You don't want to move Faulk. You're not moving Krug. You probably don't want to move Leddy just yet. You're going to have to live with that on defense for 2-3 more years. You can get the rest of the defense poised to be better and a force for years to come, so that 2-3 years out you're not looking at that trio thinking goddamnit, they're all still in the top-4 instead of the bottom 3-4. There's all kinds of guys ready at forward; it's the defense that needs to be built if this team is going to be successful after getting through this muddle-it period.

 

[joe galiba]

I wouldn’t mind having a T-34 or a Tiger, maybe a M-48

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Re: selling at the deadline - I hope everyone recognizes that if this team is in playoff contention going into the trade deadline, we're not selling. We may not be buying, anyone who goes is likely going to be "really expendable" which translates to "get anything you can for them" but we're not going to cut every impending UFA loose. After the early part of March and that EC trip and the first home game back vs. LA, the rest of the schedule currently looks favorable and it's 10 home games in the final 16. It would be 2021 all over again, where it's "we need the revenue from those 2 guaranteed home playoff games" and long-term focus gets sacrificed for short-term gain.

 

[Blueston]

Re: selling at the deadline - I hope everyone recognizes that if this team is in playoff contention going into the trade deadline, we're not selling. We may not be buying, anyone who goes is likely going to be "really expendable" which translates to "get anything you can for them" but we're not going to cut every impending UFA loose. After the early part of March and that EC trip and the first home game back vs. LA, the rest of the schedule currently looks favorable and it's 10 home games in the final 16. It would be 2021 all over again, where it's "we need the revenue from those 2 guaranteed home playoff games" and long-term focus gets sacrificed for short-term gain.

None of what we are selling this year will really make significant difference. We don’t have any rentals that will return pick within top 50. It’s not like rebuild is going to be hurt much if we don’t get that extra 5th.

 

[Mike Liut]

It’s hard to tank with Binny. He steals too many games.

 

[simon IC]

That is why l would rather hang on to a guy like Bortuzzo than get a 5th or whatever in return. His contribution in the locker room and to the culture in general is worth more to me than a late pick.

 

[Thallis]

Well, I wouldn't have signed Parayko to 8/52. Or Thomas to 8/68. Or Kyrou to 8/68. Or Schenn to 8/52. I sure as hell wouldn't have handed out NTCs like they were candy, then complained about being handcuffed and not being able to make moves. I'd have moved Perunovich long ago. I'd have moved Kostin way before it became evident he wasn't going to pan out here. [Which reminds me: 19 games with Detroit this season, 1-1-2. We're really missing out on that.] Probably some other stuff.

But, all those things happened, so here we are.

What's the plan? Well, it's probably some "trade veterans for futures" because ... that's what this roster was built for - but that's low risk, low reward. I don't think anyone's overpaying for Sundqvist, or Vrana, or Blais, or Kapanen based on their seasons to date. I don't think anyone's giving more than a 7th for Bortuzzo. It's papering over the real problems on the roster and within the organization, leaving holes unaddressed. With that in mind, I'd make two major moves:

1. Trade Colton Paryako
2. Trade MV63

That clears out two glaring problem areas - one obvious but everyone wants to pretend is OK, the other not obvious and everyone thinks is better than it really is - and gives us 2 chances to stock up on defense to get this team better positioned near-term, for the long term. It's probably still getting through '24-25, but it's clearing out what's going to be an albatross of a contract and having a shot to stock up one more time and add roster guys for the long-term.

You don't want to move Faulk. You're not moving Krug. You probably don't want to move Leddy just yet. You're going to have to live with that on defense for 2-3 more years. You can get the rest of the defense poised to be better and a force for years to come, so that 2-3 years out you're not looking at that trio thinking goddamnit, they're all still in the top-4 instead of the bottom 3-4. There's all kinds of guys ready at forward; it's the defense that needs to be built if this team is going to be successful after getting through this muddle-it period.

Maybe I'm dumb but who is this referring to?

 

[Majorityof1]

Maybe I'm dumb but who is this referring to?

Mv63? Mjake Vneighbours #63 of course. The M and V are silent...ok, I'm dumb too. No clue