Official Darryl Sutter for Blues coach bandwagon thread

[Stupendous Yappi]

In my heart, I don’t think there is a person out there that could come into this team right now and change the fate of this season. This team has killed my hope that something good can happen. I really don’t care who they would hire, it will somehow be the wrong choice.

 

[PiggySmalls]

Don't want Sutter. Don't want Hitch back. AV would be my first choice I think. Beyond him, Tippet I could do. And Tyler too. Ok there isn't really a Tyler, but the history buff in me couldn't resist the old slogan.

Tyler Dietrich?

 

[Reality Czech]

In my heart, I don’t think there is a person out there that could come into this team right now and change the fate of this season. This team has killed my hope that something good can happen. I really don’t care who they would hire, it will somehow be the wrong choice.

That's the spirit.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

In my heart, I don’t think there is a person out there that could come into this team right now and change the fate of this season. This team has killed my hope that something good can happen. I really don’t care who they would hire, it will somehow be the wrong choice.

Midseason coaching changes can be very effective in the NHL.

We’ve seen it with the last two in St. Lous when Hitchcock replaced Payne after 13 games and took us to the 2nd round and then Yeo replaced Hitch and also took us to the 2nd round.

This roster is very talented. It just, seemingly, needs a new coaching strategy and system.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Midseason coaching changes can be very effective in the NHL.

We’ve seen it with the last two in St. Lous when Hitchcock replaced Payne after 13 games and took us to the 2nd round and then Yeo replaced Hitch and also took us to the 2nd round.

This roster is very talented. It just, seemingly, needs a new coaching strategy and system.

I might believe that if I thought the problem was players were starting to tube out Yeo’s voice.

 

[Dbrownss]

I might believe that if I thought the problem was players were starting to tube out Yeo’s voice.

What if Yeo and company just arent good coaches? We may not get that surge from a coaching change, but a system that plays better to the skaters we have

 

[Twisted Blue]

LOL, Yeo isn't going anywhere. The players should be worried right now. We were the most winning club in the NHL a few months ago. The problem is with the players. If we dump coaches every time we start to tank as a team, we'll never finish a season.

Before the season started and everyone was 0-0-0?

hahaha just realized this was from the spring

 

[Twisted Blue]

thats how i feel. yeo doesnt help himself. he knows that people like berglund and allen are pieces of trash this year but continues to feed them ice time and starts.

Whelp Berglund is gone so what is to be done with Allen?

 

[varano]

Midseason coaching changes can be very effective in the NHL.

We’ve seen it with the last two in St. Lous when Hitchcock replaced Payne after 13 games and took us to the 2nd round and then Yeo replaced Hitch and also took us to the 2nd round.

This roster is very talented. It just, seemingly, needs a new coaching strategy and system.

Dont forget Pittsburgh winning the cup.

I don't think sutter is the option though. Tarasenko would hate him.

 

[mw2noobbuster]

As I said Sutter is just another Hitchcock. He got a bit lucky with Voynov, Quick, Richards, Carter, Doughty, Kopitar, Brown etc.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

As I said Sutter is just another Hitchcock. He got a bit lucky with Voynov, Quick, Richards, Carter, Doughty, Kopitar, Brown etc.

Breaking News: Teams with a high quantity of very talented players win Stanley Cups!

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

If you look at those Sutter Kings teams, none of them were great regular season. I believe they missed out on the playoffs one year when they earned the same number of points as a year they won the Cup. At that level of performance, I could see a team fail to qualify for the post-season in the current Central.

He just had a good formula for the postseason, a great goalie, and players with the right mentality for postseason play. I think his system is being overrated.

 

[mw2noobbuster]

If you look at those Sutter Kings teams, none of them were great regular season. I believe they missed out on the playoffs one year when they earned the same number of points as a year they won the Cup. At that level of performance, I could see a team fail to qualify for the post-season in the current Central.

He just had a good formula for the postseason, a great goalie, and players with the right mentality for postseason play. I think his system is being overrated.

This. When they went 16-4 in the postseason in 2012 they barely squeaked through in the regular season.

 

[JoshFromMO]

This. When they went 16-4 in the postseason in 2012 they barely squeaked through in the regular season.

I might be remembering wrong, but weren't they pretty bad until the coaching change and then turned super saiyan and Quick entered god mode?

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

This. When they went 16-4 in the postseason in 2012 they barely squeaked through in the regular season.

I tend to think that team had the right pieces for the playoffs and not for the regular season.

They lacked depth but had the high impact guys that stepped up when needed in the playoffs.
Meanwhile the Blues, around that time, had the opposite. Lots of depth. Few high impact players.

Their defense was led by Doughty but then Willie Mitchell, Rob Scuderi, Matt Greene, Alec Martinez well before he broke out, and rookie Slava Voynov. Outside of Doughty, this was an underwhelming defensive group. Doughty had 16 points in 20 games in those playoffs. The other 5 guys had 16 points combined.

Their top 6 was really strong after adding Jeff Carter midseason. However, their 7-9 forwards were Dustin Penner, Trevor Lewis, and Dwight King. These guys combined for 38 points that year.

The Kings didn't have depth to step up when fatigue hit their high end guys during the season. However, once the playoffs roll around, everyone finds that extra gear and plays at their highest level. They didn't need Trevor Lewis or Alec Martinez to step up.

 

[TheDizee]

YEO MUST GO

 

[Bluesgoal]

If you look at those Sutter Kings teams, none of them were great regular season. I believe they missed out on the playoffs one year when they earned the same number of points as a year they won the Cup. At that level of performance, I could see a team fail to qualify for the post-season in the current Central.

He just had a good formula for the postseason, a great goalie, and players with the right mentality for postseason play. I think his system is being overrated.

Which would have been great for the pre 2005 teams, especially teams like the 95-96 and 96-97 Blues. I guess however you can say Keenan was that in 96 he pushed all the right buttons and was one goal away from getting the Blues to the WCF which they probably would have won the cup that year against a weaker Panthers.

This is another problem though your post points out. There are WAY WAY too many teams in the NHL now that very good teams can still miss the playoffs.

The NHL needs to go back to 26 teams I think. I would prefer 24 teams but I'd take 26 teams at this point. Soon to be 32 teams is way too many unless they add an extra playoff round like a wild card round for the lower teams.

The talent is diluted as well with all these teams. I say contract Yotes, Hurricanes, Panthers, Senators, and Sabres. Some will say Islanders too but that is a huge market NYC to take a team away.

 

[Majorityof1]

Which would have been great for the pre 2005 teams, especially teams like the 95-96 and 96-97 Blues. I guess however you can say Keenan was that in 96 he pushed all the right buttons and was one goal away from getting the Blues to the WCF which they probably would have won the cup that year against a weaker Panthers.

This is another problem though your post points out. There are WAY WAY too many teams in the NHL now that very good teams can still miss the playoffs.

The NHL needs to go back to 26 teams I think. I would prefer 24 teams but I'd take 26 teams at this point. Soon to be 32 teams is way too many unless they add an extra playoff round like a wild card round for the lower teams.

The talent is diluted as well with all these teams. I say contract Yotes, Hurricanes, Panthers, Senators, and Sabres. Some will say Islanders too but that is a huge market NYC to take a team away.

I don't think anyone will say the Islanders, because I don't think anyone will agree with you that we should contract the league. NHL needs exposure, and contracting media markets is not the way to do it. The more pervasive the NHL is, the more people will watch, and the more new fans we will have. The more fans, the more TV coverage and accessibility. Also, the players earn more, which convinces athletes to choose hockey as a viable option for a career path.

Austin Matthews would not be entertaining die-hard Toronto fans if there is no team in Arizona. Well, maybe he would, but it would be as a Blue Jay playing baseball. He is the son of a hispanic mother and a Calafornia father, neither of whom knew anything about hockey. He lived in Arizona from an early age. He attended Coyotes games at a young age, because it was a family friendly event. That's where he discovered his love for the sport, and decided he wanted to play. He was also a great baseball player, so he could have potentially gone pro there, had he not been exposed to hockey, and had the NHL's presence not bolstered youth hockey in the region. That would have been a loss to the sport.

 

[TheDizee]

how is he not fired yet?

 

[BlueDream]

Thursday's game is big. A loss there and his seat gets very hot IMO.

 

[Bluesgoal]

I don't think anyone will say the Islanders, because I don't think anyone will agree with you that we should contract the league. NHL needs exposure, and contracting media markets is not the way to do it. The more pervasive the NHL is, the more people will watch, and the more new fans we will have. The more fans, the more TV coverage and accessibility. Also, the players earn more, which convinces athletes to choose hockey as a viable option for a career path.

Austin Matthews would not be entertaining die-hard Toronto fans if there is no team in Arizona. Well, maybe he would, but it would be as a Blue Jay playing baseball. He is the son of a hispanic mother and a Calafornia father, neither of whom knew anything about hockey. He lived in Arizona from an early age. He attended Coyotes games at a young age, because it was a family friendly event. That's where he discovered his love for the sport, and decided he wanted to play. He was also a great baseball player, so he could have potentially gone pro there, had he not been exposed to hockey, and had the NHL's presence not bolstered youth hockey in the region. That would have been a loss to the sport.

The other problem with too many teams is that when the NHL really started to expanded in the 90s is when the financial problems really started. Yea, run away salary is one, but putting teams in markets too small or bad locations drags down the NHL as a whole.

The NHL first tried it in the late 60s and early 70s putting teams in Denver, Atlanta for example which at the time didn't work out as those markets were smaller at the time and the Bay area wasn't ready for hockey yet. of course Atl didn't work out the second time as well, but I think if they were given more time it would have eventually worked out. Another prospect of Atlanta and the Flames and Thrashers not doing well I would say is demographics due to the racial makeup of the area because blacks in general are not a big fan base of the NHL. The Yotes had a following in the late 90s when they were good and again a few years ago when they got deep in the playoffs but those were bad wagon fans because the team was playing good. Now that they're not playing as well and people quit going to games.

Remember back in the late 60s many thought the NHL wouldn't work in St. Louis because it is the most south the NHL ever expanded to at the time, a border south state (MO). It took a lot of work to keep the team in St. Louis in the early 80s but they had the 25 year playoffs streak which helped, and some even say Brett Hull saved hockey in St. Louis by attracting more casual fans to games. I think that's an overstatement a bit but you never know. Hell, even in 2005 when the Blues went up for sale after that disastrous season many of us were nervous about the prospects of them possibly moving after the fan base eroded that quickly but overall St. Louis people are fair weather fans like the Yotes for example only they still love the Blues even if they don't go to the games because of high ticket prices or a lousy team they still support them and would put up a fight if there was a threat of them leaving just like they did in 1983.

I recall Federko one time saying about being drafted by the Blues that he didn't even really know where St. Louis was or anything about the city.

 

[PiggySmalls]

Which would have been great for the pre 2005 teams, especially teams like the 95-96 and 96-97 Blues. I guess however you can say Keenan was that in 96 he pushed all the right buttons and was one goal away from getting the Blues to the WCF which they probably would have won the cup that year against a weaker Panthers.

This is another problem though your post points out. There are WAY WAY too many teams in the NHL now that very good teams can still miss the playoffs.

The NHL needs to go back to 26 teams I think. I would prefer 24 teams but I'd take 26 teams at this point. Soon to be 32 teams is way too many unless they add an extra playoff round like a wild card round for the lower teams.

The talent is diluted as well with all these teams. I say contract Yotes, Hurricanes, Panthers, Senators, and Sabres. Some will say Islanders too but that is a huge market NYC to take a team away.

The bolded is what I vehemently disagree with. Every year AHL, Major Juniors, NCAA, and Europe develop fresh fruit for the league. This is very evident by the amount of veterans that are now getting PTOs or heading off to Europe. Plus look at the parity, while you can say the salary cap is more of an influence on those 2 things. Every team has young stellar players.

 

[Majorityof1]

The other problem with too many teams is that when the NHL really started to expanded in the 90s is when the financial problems really started. Yea, run away salary is one, but putting teams in markets too small or bad locations drags down the NHL as a whole.

The NHL first tried it in the late 60s and early 70s putting teams in Denver, Atlanta for example which at the time didn't work out as those markets were smaller at the time and the Bay area wasn't ready for hockey yet. of course Atl didn't work out the second time as well, but I think if they were given more time it would have eventually worked out. Another prospect of Atlanta and the Flames and Thrashers not doing well I would say is demographics due to the racial makeup of the area because blacks in general are not a big fan base of the NHL. The Yotes had a following in the late 90s when they were good and again a few years ago when they got deep in the playoffs but those were bad wagon fans because the team was playing good. Now that they're not playing as well and people quit going to games.

Remember back in the late 60s many thought the NHL wouldn't work in St. Louis because it is the most south the NHL ever expanded to at the time, a border south state (MO). It took a lot of work to keep the team in St. Louis in the early 80s but they had the 25 year playoffs streak which helped, and some even say Brett Hull saved hockey in St. Louis by attracting more casual fans to games. I think that's an overstatement a bit but you never know. Hell, even in 2005 when the Blues went up for sale after that disastrous season many of us were nervous about the prospects of them possibly moving after the fan base eroded that quickly but overall St. Louis people are fair weather fans like the Yotes for example only they still love the Blues even if they don't go to the games because of high ticket prices or a lousy team they still support them and would put up a fight if there was a threat of them leaving just like they did in 1983.

I recall Federko one time saying about being drafted by the Blues that he didn't even really know where St. Louis was or anything about the city.

I think you are arguing against yourself. You say some locations don't work out, but then give examples of how with effort they eventually do. St. Louis is a good hockey town now, baseball first, obviously, but still good for hockey. Nashville was a tough sell at first but it is a rocking place now with filling 100.4% of capacity on average. Atlanta didn't work, but then you just relocate the team. The former Thrashers, now Jets, are quite loved in Winnipeg, also averaging above capacity. Last year, only 6 teams averaged less than 90% capacity. Only 3 less than 80%, and only one less than 75% (Carolina actually, at 71.3%). Vegas, the latest expansion, rocked for attendance and was embraced with a fanbase and a culture that was a huge win for the sportbut not at all traditional.

I think the most obvious argument against you is the demand side of the market for NHL franchises is not tapped out. People are willing to jump in to buy struggling franchises. Let the market talk. Nobody is trying to sell their team (that I know of). But Seattle is chomping at the bit to get theirs, offering up a record expansion fee thats over 10 times what it was in the 90s.

As to the bolded, the NHL is at its highest revenue generation of all time right now. Its been rising very quickly over the years. Its at 4.43 billion dollars in 2016/17, up 82% over where it was 10 years prior. Places like Vegas and Nashville have absolutely contributed to it. And places like Arizona are able to be propped up by revenue sharing, which the owners agree to because opening those markets is good for a game as a whole. The value of franchises is up league-wide. The average value of a franchise was $220M in 2008 and has risen 172% to $598M today. Media contracts are both more plentiful and lucrative. Your argument just holds no water, and you have zero facts to support it.

Facts pulled from following:
The average NHL team’s value is up nearly $380 million since 2008
2017-2018 NHL Attendance - National Hockey League - ESPN
NHL league revenue 2005-2017 | Statistic

 

[Bluesgoal]

I think you are arguing against yourself. You say some locations don't work out, but then give examples of how with effort they eventually do. St. Louis is a good hockey town now, baseball first, obviously, but still good for hockey. Nashville was a tough sell at first but it is a rocking place now with filling 100.4% of capacity on average. Atlanta didn't work, but then you just relocate the team. The former Thrashers, now Jets, are quite loved in Winnipeg, also averaging above capacity. Last year, only 6 teams averaged less than 90% capacity. Only 3 less than 80%, and only one less than 75% (Carolina actually, at 71.3%). Vegas, the latest expansion, rocked for attendance and was embraced with a fanbase and a culture that was a huge win for the sportbut not at all traditional.

I think the most obvious argument against you is the demand side of the market for NHL franchises is not tapped out. People are willing to jump in to buy struggling franchises. Let the market talk. Nobody is trying to sell their team (that I know of). But Seattle is chomping at the bit to get theirs, offering up a record expansion fee thats over 10 times what it was in the 90s.

As to the bolded, the NHL is at its highest revenue generation of all time right now. Its been rising very quickly over the years. Its at 4.43 billion dollars in 2016/17, up 82% over where it was 10 years prior. Places like Vegas and Nashville have absolutely contributed to it. And places like Arizona are able to be propped up by revenue sharing, which the owners agree to because opening those markets is good for a game as a whole. The value of franchises is up league-wide. The average value of a franchise was $220M in 2008 and has risen 172% to $598M today. Media contracts are both more plentiful and lucrative. Your argument just holds no water, and you have zero facts to support it.

Facts pulled from following:
The average NHL team’s value is up nearly $380 million since 2008
2017-2018 NHL Attendance - National Hockey League - ESPN
NHL league revenue 2005-2017 | Statistic

Some markets are just not good for the NHL due to being transient. Like SEFL, Atlanta, Phoenix. Tampa is doing better, but there are more year round people there and planted there. SEFL is warmer in the winter and more transient and touristy so people are not into hockey as much. Atlanta's problem is simply the demographics if the metro area.

Of course a team like the Jets is going to do well, it's Canada. The Senators are not that dire right now but you also got the Maple Leafs, Canadians, and Sabres near by.

A city like Atlanta you're not going to be able to build up a hockey fan base culture like you can in Tampa, Dallas, or St. Louis that gives the team enough support.

The difference is the Coyotes needed the NHL to save them when they bled major $$. The Blues bleed a sh** load of money BUT also had Bill Laurie as owner who had the money to keep digging into his pocket.

The 1983 situation was a lot different for St. Louis. Ralston just said F it. They could have easily propped the team up. If Harry Ornset could save them so could Ralston with more money. That was because Ralston Purina is a business and didn't want the team anymore. Pretty p*ss poor move on them to try and sell to Canadians knowing they would move the team.

At least the Laurie's made sure they got owners who would keep the team in St. Louis.

A lot of armchair fans hate the Lauries, but they gave the Blues a great chance at getting the cup in the free spending era of the NHL and spent a lot of their owner money for 5 seasons taking big loses.

 

[Majorityof1]

Some markets are just not good for the NHL due to being transient. Like SEFL, Atlanta, Phoenix. Tampa is doing better, but there are more year round people there and planted there. SEFL is warmer in the winter and more transient and touristy so people are not into hockey as much. Atlanta's problem is simply the demographics if the metro area.

Of course a team like the Jets is going to do well, it's Canada. The Senators are not that dire right now but you also got the Maple Leafs, Canadians, and Sabres near by.

A city like Atlanta you're not going to be able to build up a hockey fan base culture like you can in Tampa, Dallas, or St. Louis that gives the team enough support.

The difference is the Coyotes needed the NHL to save them when they bled major $$. The Blues bleed a sh** load of money BUT also had Bill Laurie as owner who had the money to keep digging into his pocket.

The 1983 situation was a lot different for St. Louis. Ralston just said F it. They could have easily propped the team up. If Harry Ornset could save them so could Ralston with more money. That was because Ralston Purina is a business and didn't want the team anymore. Pretty p*ss poor move on them to try and sell to Canadians knowing they would move the team.

At least the Laurie's made sure they got owners who would keep the team in St. Louis.

A lot of armchair fans hate the Lauries, but they gave the Blues a great chance at getting the cup in the free spending era of the NHL and spent a lot of their owner money for 5 seasons taking big loses.

Neither Coyotes or Blues bleed money now though. Atlanta no longer has a franchise. You aren't addressing my points, but shifting the goal posts.

Attendance is decent for every team. Revenue sharing allows every team to at the least break even absent mismanagement. Expansion into new markets have increased the NHL's marketability, and hence franchise value and league-wide revenue. New markets also expose the game to talented athletes who may never have played the game otherwise, so we have more skilled players than ever before. I have provided facts to support each one of those points. You have not addressed a single one of those points regarding today's NHL.

I am done. I disagree with the idea. I'm open to discussion, but you've provided no evidence that the CURRENT NHL needs to be contracted.