JR reporting that the Blues will not name a C this season?

[Blueston]

JR continues to lose what ever credibility he had left. I legit feel sorry for him as we continue to see he either has no sources in the Blues organization after leaving STL today, or they are feeding him lousy information as a payback for Tarasenko.

sure does seem that way..

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

JR continues to lose what ever credibility he had left. I legit feel sorry for him as we continue to see he either has no sources in the Blues organization after leaving STL today, or they are feeding him lousy information as a payback for Tarasenko.

I don't, he's simply facing the consequences of his own actions that called his journalistic integrity into question. Plus, I think his content has severely degraded in the years since he left the PD and went to the Athletic.

 

[Majorityof1]

I don't, he's simply facing the consequences of his own actions that called his journalistic integrity into question. Plus, I think his content has severely degraded in the years since he left the PD and went to the Athletic.

I don't get the Rutherford hate over the Tarasenko story. He broke a story that was true. He got a one-sided account of it, but that is because only one side was talking. He reported what he heard.

I am curious what all you journalistic integrity experts (who have undoubtedly never worked in or studied journalism) would have done differently? Would you have not reported that Tarasenko demanded a trade? He could have worded his articles better, sure. But he had to report it. It was absolutely news.

To me, it seems like many of you all didn't like the content of the news because it was critical of the blues, and you are very much reveling in anyone who shoots at the messenger. To me, it would be terrible journalistic integrity if you sat on a news story because you were afraid of burning bridges with the subject of your coverage. Could you imagine if someone had a big story about how a high ranking government official really messed up, but they sat on it because they didn't want to lose that official's political party as a source? ....Ok, well yeah, that is what our network cable news outlets do now, but it shouldn't be.

 

[sbet1998]

Why don't you think Faulk would make sense?

He appears to be a very well liked guy in the room and wore a letter for 4 seasons in Carolina, which included a year as 'co-captain' where he wore the C for road games.

He leads all Blues in ice time since his arrival in St. Louis and has led the team in both total minutes and minutes per game in two of the last 3 seasons (2020/21 and 2022/23). I think Parayko is better and more important at 5 on 5 and on the PK, but Faulk contributes big minutes both on the PK and PP.

He has 4 more years left on his contract, he is frequently called on to do post-game media, and the marketing team clearly pushes him as one of the 'faces' of the team during their in-arena segments during commercial breaks. Look at the lineup of guys who will be at Blues and Brews this week: Binner, Schenn, Thomas, Parayko, Faulk, Hayes, and Berube. That's the new guy and the presumed leadership group. Faulk is included.

I expect it to be Schenn or Thomas, but I think Faulk is an obvious choice to belong in the next tier of possibilities.

I agree with your point and it makes sense for him to get an A but I just couldnt see him wearing the C when there were better choices that clearly made more sense.

Faulk isnt as well liked by the fans as other guys and he's only getting those minutes because the Blues D doesnt currently have any other options. He also doesnt come across as a heart and soul type player nor did he come through the Blues system.

 

[sbet1998]

I don't get the Rutherford hate over the Tarasenko story. He broke a story that was true. He got a one-sided account of it, but that is because only one side was talking. He reported what he heard.

I am curious what all you journalistic integrity experts (who have undoubtedly never worked in or studied journalism) would have done differently? Would you have not reported that Tarasenko demanded a trade? He could have worded his articles better, sure. But he had to report it. It was absolutely news.

To me, it seems like many of you all didn't like the content of the news because it was critical of the blues, and you are very much reveling in anyone who shoots at the messenger. To me, it would be terrible journalistic integrity if you sat on a news story because you were afraid of burning bridges with the subject of your coverage. Could you imagine if someone had a big story about how a high ranking government official really messed up, but they sat on it because they didn't want to lose that official's political party as a source? ....Ok, well yeah, that is what our network cable news outlets do now, but it shouldn't be.

Not a fan of JR and dont read his stuff but you're correct here.

That said the Blues also have the right to ignore his inquiries as well. They owe him nothing.

 

[Xerloris]

I am curious what all you journalistic integrity experts (who have undoubtedly never worked in or studied journalism) would have done differently? Would you have not reported that Tarasenko demanded a trade? He could have worded his articles better, sure. But he had to report it. It was absolutely news.

I dunno, maybe not post what ever a players agent tells you to post? Posting shit going on about how the Blues are ruining arasenko's value and they have to trade him right now or he wont be worth anything? What a load of shit to think JR had any integrity in his "journalism" if that's what you call his gutter trash articles.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

I don't get the Rutherford hate over the Tarasenko story. He broke a story that was true. He got a one-sided account of it, but that is because only one side was talking. He reported what he heard.

I am curious what all you journalistic integrity experts (who have undoubtedly never worked in or studied journalism) would have done differently? Would you have not reported that Tarasenko demanded a trade? He could have worded his articles better, sure. But he had to report it. It was absolutely news.

To me, it seems like many of you all didn't like the content of the news because it was critical of the blues, and you are very much reveling in anyone who shoots at the messenger. To me, it would be terrible journalistic integrity if you sat on a news story because you were afraid of burning bridges with the subject of your coverage. Could you imagine if someone had a big story about how a high ranking government official really messed up, but they sat on it because they didn't want to lose that official's political party as a source? ....Ok, well yeah, that is what our network cable news outlets do now, but it shouldn't be.

Reporting the trade request was fine. My issue was that he took his source as the gospel truth, when he should have known that it was incredibly biased.

Was the Blues org blameless in the Tarasenko situation? Not at all, but JR went overboard on siding with his biased source.

 

[sbet1998]

If all he did was put Tarasenko's agent's quotes in the article then I cant blame him for reporting that. Thats literally his job -- even if the Blues refused to comment. You still have to run what the agent said but you have to preface it as such.

Its not his job to inject his own opinions, side with the agent or speculate on unconfirmed info to try to sway the readers opinion, however. If this is what he did (never read it, dont have the Althletic) then he deserves all the criticism he is getting.

 

[Frenzy31]

I don't get the Rutherford hate over the Tarasenko story. He broke a story that was true. He got a one-sided account of it, but that is because only one side was talking. He reported what he heard.

I am curious what all you journalistic integrity experts (who have undoubtedly never worked in or studied journalism) would have done differently? Would you have not reported that Tarasenko demanded a trade? He could have worded his articles better, sure. But he had to report it. It was absolutely news.

To me, it seems like many of you all didn't like the content of the news because it was critical of the blues, and you are very much reveling in anyone who shoots at the messenger. To me, it would be terrible journalistic integrity if you sat on a news story because you were afraid of burning bridges with the subject of your coverage. Could you imagine if someone had a big story about how a high ranking government official really messed up, but they sat on it because they didn't want to lose that official's political party as a source? ....Ok, well yeah, that is what our network cable news outlets do now, but it shouldn't be.

If he had just reported the Tarasenko was unhappy and wanted to be trade, I think everyone would be fine. If he reported the specific reason (didn't like the medical care provided) then I think most people here would be fine with that.

But he went well beyond that. That had nothing to do with journalism, IT WAS PROPAGANDA. He was trying to help the agent force a trade. You really can't argue that point.

 

[sbet1998]

If he had just reported the Tarasenko was unhappy and wanted to be trade, I think everyone would be fine. If he reported the specific reason (didn't like the medical care provided) then I think most people here would be fine with that.

But he went well beyond that. That had nothing to do with journalism, IT WAS PROPAGANDA. He was trying to help the agent force a trade. You really can't argue that point.

Never read the article. Could you clarify how he was attempting to help force a trade?

 

[Frenzy31]

Never read the article. Could you clarify how he was attempting to help force a trade?

I can't find those quotes as it has been a couple of years, but JR constantly reporting (I think tweeting) how T was unhappy. How his value was getting lower and lower. A lot to put pressure on the Blues to move him prior to the start of the season. Even speculation about him not reporting to camp... There may even be a thread somewhere in the history on this site.

 

[TurgPavs]

I think Thomas is as close to untouchable as it gets in the NHL short of McDavid/Sid/MacKinnon/Matthews tier superstars. Which makes him as untouchable as any player who has been on the Blues roster in the cap era.

He's established himself as a (below average) 1C before hitting 24 years old and is just starting an 8 year deal that pays him like a below average 1C in year 1. The cap is about to noticeably increase for the first time in years and cap hits for premium players are going to go up with it. Barring major regression, he is either going to be paid fairly or underpaid all 8 years. Even if we assume that he's best suited as a high end 2C to complement a better 1C, his contract is perfectly reasonable for that role.

24 year old 1Cs locked in for reasonable cap hits just don't get traded in the NHL. I can't recall a single example of such a trade in the last decade.

He's won at every level (2 OHL championships, a Memorial Cup championship, a World Junior championship, and a Stanley Cup), has 2 seasons finishing as a top 32 most productive NHL center, he's a takeaway machine and he is better defensively than the large majority of under-25 top 6 players in the NHL. He was better in his age 22 season than any Blues forward in the salary cap era. The next-best performance by and age 22-or-younger Blues forward was Jaden Schwartz putting up 63 points in 2015. No other young forward has put up 55+ points for the Blues prior to their age 23 season. Tarasenko had a better age 23 season than Thomas did, but that is the only guy I can say that about.

You might not like him as a core piece, but he is absolutely a core piece. I think there are more, but this one really isn't debatable.

I have zero problem with building around Thomas, not real big on the rest of the parts pieces that we have accumulated on the NHL roster. I think there is some good prospects, but many of those will take time to develop.
I see the next 2 years as a path for the Blues to flush out some of the bad contracts, and possibly compete for a WC spot.

The way the roster is constructed, Army or whomever is the GM, is going to have some chips to play at the TDL over the next 4 seasons with the pending UFA's
2024: Kappy, Vrana, Blais, Sunny, Scandy, Bortz, Rosen
2025: Buch
2026: Saad, Hayes, Leddy
2027: Krug, Faulk, Binny

Again I hope, and I would love to be wrong, but I think we are in for a bumpy ride over the next 2 seasons.

 

[67Blues]

JR has been so off lately it’s starting to look like he’s being purposely fed false info. He do something to piss off the front office or something?

Classic methodology to find a leak. Feed out different stories and see which ones surface. As tight lipped as Army is, he may want to find out and seal any leaks.

 

[finnishflash13]

Going to guess Schenn or Thomas but I really wish they would wait this out and let someone naturally step up into the role. Preferably someone who is going to be a Blue long term. I dont see a real good fit right now basically because Thomas isnt there yet IMO.

I see pocketnines and others mentioning Parayko -- that would actually surprise me but I can kind of see it. Faulk makes zero sense. The dark horse for me is actually Buchnevich.


You know the Blues want it to be Thomas. Will they force it?

Schenn was named captain because he checked all of those boxes ^
he has 5 years on his contract and was essentially already serving as captain after ROR's trade

 

[sbet1998]

I can't find those quotes as it has been a couple of years, but JR constantly reporting (I think tweeting) how T was unhappy. How his value was getting lower and lower. A lot to put pressure on the Blues to move him prior to the start of the season. Even speculation about him not reporting to camp... There may even be a thread somewhere in the history on this site.

Classic methodology to find a leak. Feed out different stories and see which ones surface. As tight lipped as Army is, he may want to find out and seal any leaks.

I dont think the Blues are running those kind of ops. They're not in that business.

 

[sbet1998]

Schenn was named captain because he checked all of those boxes ^
he has 5 years on his contract and was essentially already serving as captain after ROR's trade

Yep, I see that. Its why I named him as the No.1 candidate for C. Kind of obvious but I think the Blues would have preferred Thomas take over that role.

 

[Brian39]

I don't get the Rutherford hate over the Tarasenko story. He broke a story that was true. He got a one-sided account of it, but that is because only one side was talking. He reported what he heard.

I am curious what all you journalistic integrity experts (who have undoubtedly never worked in or studied journalism) would have done differently? Would you have not reported that Tarasenko demanded a trade? He could have worded his articles better, sure. But he had to report it. It was absolutely news.

To me, it seems like many of you all didn't like the content of the news because it was critical of the blues, and you are very much reveling in anyone who shoots at the messenger. To me, it would be terrible journalistic integrity if you sat on a news story because you were afraid of burning bridges with the subject of your coverage. Could you imagine if someone had a big story about how a high ranking government official really messed up, but they sat on it because they didn't want to lose that official's political party as a source? ....Ok, well yeah, that is what our network cable news outlets do now, but it shouldn't be.

The initial report was fine and pretty well in line with what you outline.

22 days after that report, he wrote a comically terrible article about how the Blues had shit on Tarasenko and badly misplayed the situation by holding onto him for so long. This article was almost entirely based on very opinion based quotes, all of which came from a single anonymous source. To put the timeline into context of the NHL calendar, the article about the trade request broke during the last game of the Stanley Cup Final and the article blasting the Blues for waiting too long to get a deal done was published the day after free agency opened.

I have never seen a more obvious example of a beat writer being used as the mouthpiece for a player agent in my time as a hockey fan.

Basing the premise (and all of the content) of an article on the opinions of a single unnamed source is horrific journalism. If you are writing a "this is how a source feels about an issue" article, it is basic journalistic standard to provide information/feelings from other sources. Whether that is a counterpoint or agreement from other sources in the industry, you need to have something more than the opinions of one person who you decline to identify.

That article didn't resemble journalism or 'reporting.' That was a letter to the editor from the clearly biased source that JR dressed up as an article while removing all identifying info from the source. Allowing a source to fully dictate the content of an opinion piece like that with zero push back or support from any other source is atrocious journalism.

Here is the link to the article. It remains by far the worst thing I've ever read on the Athletic.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

JR defended what he wrote by stating the source wouldn’t go on record. But he fails to grasp that he has a position of power as the journalist. That agent wanted to be able to shape the public perception. If you call his bluff, you can get quotes that ARE on the record, or maybe you just don’t write that piece.

He also seems to miss the fact that no one on the Blues would give him any quotes and the way he disincentivized them to do so by being so readily manipulated by the agent.

It wasn’t long after this that Emily Kaplan reported on her interview with Doug Armstrong. She said something like, “I asked if there was any development toward re-signing Tarasenko and Doug said ‘no comment’”

I can’t remember the quote exactly, but the no comment response actually revealed useful information. It was a masterful contrast with JR’s amateurish approach to the same situation. Can you imagine JR reporting about a political topic with two competing points of view? He’d be lost.

 

[Brian39]

JR defended what he wrote by stating the source wouldn’t go on record. But he fails to grasp that he has a position of power as the journalist. That agent wanted to be able to shape the public perception. If you call his bluff, you can get quotes that ARE on the record, or maybe you just don’t write that piece.

And if the source holds firm, then that is considered 'background.' A term that got its name specifically because you aren't supposed to focus entire articles around a single unnamed source.

 

[BlueOil]

the only reason i keep my athletic subscription is because they'll offer it to me for $0.50 a month if i let it expire. there's a lot of great hockey and NHL coverage on there, but JR's contributions and the blues coverage sucks. other outlets closing their sports depts and deferring the athletic model just makes having a poor writer assigned to your team an even further punishment.

JR's insights are poor and he doesn't explain hockey well, same reason Jim Thomas stunk as the beat writer. PD has struggled for quite awhile to put someone competent in that position.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

the only reason i keep my athletic subscription is because they'll offer it to me for $0.50 a month if i let it expire. there's a lot of great hockey and NHL coverage on there, but JR's contributions and the blues coverage sucks. other outlets closing their sports depts and deferring the athletic model just makes having a poor writer assigned to your team an even further punishment.

JR's insights are poor and he doesn't explain hockey well, same reason Jim Thomas stunk as the beat writer. PD has struggled for quite awhile to put someone competent in that position.

I remember him spending the whole training camp leading into the 17-18 season spouting that Walman was the front runner for a roster spot over Dunn.

 

[Majorityof1]

The initial report was fine and pretty well in line with what you outline.

22 days after that report, he wrote a comically terrible article about how the Blues had shit on Tarasenko and badly misplayed the situation by holding onto him for so long. This article was almost entirely based on very opinion based quotes, all of which came from a single anonymous source. To put the timeline into context of the NHL calendar, the article about the trade request broke during the last game of the Stanley Cup Final and the article blasting the Blues for waiting too long to get a deal done was published the day after free agency opened.

I have never seen a more obvious example of a beat writer being used as the mouthpiece for a player agent in my time as a hockey fan.

Basing the premise (and all of the content) of an article on the opinions of a single unnamed source is horrific journalism. If you are writing a "this is how a source feels about an issue" article, it is basic journalistic standard to provide information/feelings from other sources. Whether that is a counterpoint or agreement from other sources in the industry, you need to have something more than the opinions of one person who you decline to identify.

That article didn't resemble journalism or 'reporting.' That was a letter to the editor from the clearly biased source that JR dressed up as an article while removing all identifying info from the source. Allowing a source to fully dictate the content of an opinion piece like that with zero push back or support from any other source is atrocious journalism.

Here is the link to the article. It remains by far the worst thing I've ever read on the Athletic.

That article is bad. He does include a press quote from Armstrong to try to show the other side. It is difficult to show the other side if he is being frozen out. I do think the way he referenced his source is intentionally confusing. It definitely reads like he has one source an is trying to hide the fact he has one source. He should be clear when referencing sources if they are the same or not. "A source said" when you already referenced an anounymous source is not a good way to put it. It shoud be "The same source" or "a second/another source".

He should also detail where the source is situated. "A source close to Tarasenko's camp" as to opposed to a "league source". If the source was a GM in the league, I think he is fine. But it does appear to be Tarasenko's agent.

So I have qualms about how he worte the article. But again, the topic is a worthy thing to discuss, as would be a league source saying Tarasenko's value is falling (just not his agent as a source). It would be fine but it just wasn't discussed in the right way.

I don't think this rises to the level of hate he gets. I also think it is slightly on the Blues for freezing him out. If you don't want one-sided articles written, give the journalist with a national outlet with good reach covering your team a quote, even a generic one.

 

[rumrokh]

The initial report was fine and pretty well in line with what you outline.

22 days after that report, he wrote a comically terrible article about how the Blues had shit on Tarasenko and badly misplayed the situation by holding onto him for so long. This article was almost entirely based on very opinion based quotes, all of which came from a single anonymous source. To put the timeline into context of the NHL calendar, the article about the trade request broke during the last game of the Stanley Cup Final and the article blasting the Blues for waiting too long to get a deal done was published the day after free agency opened.

I have never seen a more obvious example of a beat writer being used as the mouthpiece for a player agent in my time as a hockey fan.

Basing the premise (and all of the content) of an article on the opinions of a single unnamed source is horrific journalism. If you are writing a "this is how a source feels about an issue" article, it is basic journalistic standard to provide information/feelings from other sources. Whether that is a counterpoint or agreement from other sources in the industry, you need to have something more than the opinions of one person who you decline to identify.

That article didn't resemble journalism or 'reporting.' That was a letter to the editor from the clearly biased source that JR dressed up as an article while removing all identifying info from the source. Allowing a source to fully dictate the content of an opinion piece like that with zero push back or support from any other source is atrocious journalism.

Here is the link to the article. It remains by far the worst thing I've ever read on the Athletic.

Bingo. You don't have to have a journalism degree to, I dunno, read and understand the context.

 

[TurgPavs]

JR defended what he wrote by stating the source wouldn’t go on record. But he fails to grasp that he has a position of power as the journalist. That agent wanted to be able to shape the public perception. If you call his bluff, you can get quotes that ARE on the record, or maybe you just don’t write that piece.

He also seems to miss the fact that no one on the Blues would give him any quotes and the way he disincentivized them to do so by being so readily manipulated by the agent.

It wasn’t long after this that Emily Kaplan reported on her interview with Doug Armstrong. She said something like, “I asked if there was any development toward re-signing Tarasenko and Doug said ‘no comment’”

I can’t remember the quote exactly, but the no comment response actually revealed useful information. It was a masterful contrast with JR’s amateurish approach to the same situation. Can you imagine JR reporting about a political topic with two competing points of view? He’d be lost.

He also went on 101 during the BK and Rivers segment, stating that Vladdy was not happy with several team mates and he and Schenn haven't spoken directly to each other for some time.

Schenn was on the same show 2 weeks later and said he had no idea where that came from, that he and Vladdy had been working out together for some time.

You know it was bad when Pierre McGuire on the NHL Channel said, "Has Jeremy Rutherford been able to trade Tarasenko yet"

Thats what happens when you go to a pay site like the Athletic, have to drive those subscribers in order to get paid.

 

[BlueOil]

Here is the link to the article. It remains by far the worst thing I've ever read on the Athletic.

JR apologized for it, so he knows