Reactions to Army's Press Conference

[Celtic Note]

I have to say that I am enjoying the discussion here and the contributions being made. It seems we are at our best as a forum when we drill down and leave the personal stuff out of it.

 

[Brian39]

Every trade and contract signing is a gamble and not every gamble can be a success. Armstrong has made some good moves and some not so good moves, but I think it's more fair to consider why he made those moves in the first place rather than simply focusing on the outcome. OK, people hate the Krug signing. So should Army have not signed anyone after Petro left? How do we know plan B would have worked out any better?

I agree with a lot of your post, but I do think that it is worth noting that there were plenty of people who were very much arguing that Army shouldn't sign Krug, give Dunn a full year of 'sink or swim' in the offensive top 4 D and PP1 role, and spend that money elsewhere (a bigger more shutdown focused vet and/or forward help). Questions about which D men were actually going to kill penalties for us were being raised well before Krug ever played a game for us.

No one has the ability to know exactly who could/would have been targeted in an alternate timeline where he doesn't sign Krug or exactly how that would have went, but there very much was criticism and concern in the moment.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I'll also give some credit, it's not like Army hasn't tried high-reward fliers in the past. Yakupov certainly fit that, even if he flopped, he was just a true bust, not someone that needed a change of scenery.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

No one has the ability to know exactly who could/would have been targeted in an alternate timeline where he doesn't sign Krug or exactly how that would have went, but there very much was criticism and concern in the moment.

We have no way of knowing what trades were available or pursued but did not become reality. It's not like teams talk about who they were willing or wanted to trade but could not seal the deal.....and for good reason. That's why the question "who should we have traded for" can't be answered unless the guy was traded to somebody, and even that scenario is not a sure thing.

The other issue was Army wanted to take the defense in a direction that was inconsistent with what his coach preached. Maybe the speed of that transition was the fault of JBo and Petro leaving, but it was doubtful that marriage was going to last long whenever the transition took hold.

If I were going to have a beer (or seven) with Army, my question would be what he envisions our defense looking like (philosophy-wise) in three seasons and a rough roadmap of how it would get from where we are today to that.

 

[Brian39]

We have no way of knowing what trades were available or pursued but did not become reality. It's not like teams talk about who they were willing or wanted to trade but could not seal the deal.....and for good reason. That's why the question "who should we have traded for" can't be answered unless the guy was traded to somebody, and even that scenario is not a sure thing.

Not for nothing, but the absolute best example of 'what could have been' based on these parameters is that the RFA rights for D Toews were traded to the Avs 3 days after we signed Krug. The return was a 2021 2nd and a 2022 2nd. Colorado finished 3rd in the NHL the season before the trade, so I think it is a safe bet that the Isles knew that they would be receiving mid-to-late 2nds in that package. That was a pure picks return and I think it is fair to assume that the Isles were simply aiming for the best package possible since they didn't get a specific player/prospect.

We didn't own a 2nd round pick in 2021 at the time of that trade, but we did still own all other future 2nds and all future 1sts. I think it is reasonable to argue that we could have put together a picks or a picks/prospects package of higher value than the Avs without gutting the prospect pool. I think it is also reasonable to say that Army is comfortable acquiring-then-extending players since he did that with Faulk in the fall of 2019 and again with Buchy in 2021.

Making a competing bid for a guy like Toews would be a very Army-like move.

Now, No one here could have known the eventual trade return for Toews or his eventual extension terms at the time we were discussing Krug/Petro leading up to the opening of free agency (and in the immediate aftermath of the signing), but it is reasonable to say that Army would have at least had an idea of those things. I don't believe that the Isles would have shopped Toews without reaching out to Army. It was becoming clear that a big hole was about to be blown into our D group and a GM with a good 25 year old D would be crazy not to reach out in those circumstances.

We'll never know for sure, but I think it is pretty reasonable to say that a potential alternative to signing Krug would have been to trade our top 10 protected 2021 1st (which became Bolduc) for Toews and then extended him at a similar contract to the $4.1M x 4 Colorado gave him. I don't see how the Isles could have passed up a 1st in favor of two 2nds from a team on the upswing like Colorado was. Maybe we could have won the bidding war without including the 2021 1st, but I think that is a price point that gets it done.

I think you have to use a ton of hindsight to act like giving up a 1st for Toews would have been a no brainer, because he just wasn't the player we think of now at that time. And who knows if he every becomes that player if he spends the next 4 years paired with Parayko and/or Faulk instead of Makar.

But I think it is a pretty reasonable 'this was an option at the time' breakdown.

 

[Thallis]

That's fair but it was next to impossible to remake the team while the COVID cap was in effect. GMs planned their budgets assuming the cap would go up as usual, and most trades had to be salary neutral. I think the plan was always to give the old core one last chance last year and we saw how that turned out, but I don't know what dramatic changes Army could have made to guarantee a much different outcome.

Every trade and contract signing is a gamble and not every gamble can be a success. Armstrong has made some good moves and some not so good moves, but I think it's more fair to consider why he made those moves in the first place rather than simply focusing on the outcome. OK, people hate the Krug signing. So should Army have not signed anyone after Petro left? How do we know plan B would have worked out any better? People talk about getting a replacement for Bouwmeester as if guys like that become available all the time. Would fans have been ok trading a Snuggerud/Neighbours caliber prospect + in order to get that guy?

I just think in general things tend to balance out in the end. The consolation prize of having down years is a team can get better prospects. Let's say Army did manage to make some great moves to extend our window another couple years, but would it be worth it? If we had won another Cup, sure it would have been. But it's also possible that making desperate moves to keep the team on top would have hurt us more in the long term. Maybe we wouldn't have Dvorsky, Lindstein and Stenberg right now, or maybe our "retool/refocus/rebuild" would have been delayed a few years.

I'm not even sure having Petro on this team would really make a big enough difference. In the short term sure, but what if we still needed to rebuild with an aging Petro making almost $9 million with an NMC? We can play the hypothetical game all day but no one knows if those moves would have actually been any better in the long run. I'm more interested in what we should do now and going forward, but if people enjoy arguing about the same old decisions from years ago then I guess go ahead. I just don't get the point.

It's likely we would at the tail end of his contract, but the point of giving that contract him is to make the window we had last as long as possible while these players are still elite players. IMO, the difference between 16 and 30 in the draft is a lot smaller than 16 and 5 so while you go for it you can still collect assets to replenish the roster via trade or developing. As it stands we're just in limbo where we replaced our elite talent with depth, making us not good enough to make the playoffs, but aren't drafting high enough to reliably get it. The direction of the franchise has been to emphasize depth over elite talent, which I (and most studies on what makes hockey teams successful) fundamentally disagree with. The Pietrangelo situation is the biggest example of that dichotomy so it gets the most attention.

As for the Krug situation: signing him meant we gave up a younger and better defenseman in Dunn in the expansion draft.

 

[Majorityof1]

I think bigger issue (and you touch on it) is our failure to develop defensemen, particularly at nhl level. I blame MVR specifically, but that responsibility falls on Berube and army too. When Dunn and Walman and Miko all blossom after leaving, in way that they weren’t while here, that is the bigger issue to me.

Is it a failure to develop? All 3 of those blossomed pretty quickly the very next year. Mikkola struggled post TDL in NY, but was great next year.

I don't think it was development. I think it was we didn't recognize what we had, and we were 't willing/able to give them the time and space to take the next step.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Is it a failure to develop? All 3 of those blossomed pretty quickly the vest next year. Mikkola struggled post TDL in NY, bit was great next year.

I don't think it was development. I think it was we didn't recognize what we had, and we were 't willing/able to give them the time and space to take the next step.

Isn't that most people's definition of development?

 

[Majorityof1]

Isn't that most people's definition of development?

When I think of development, I think more about coaching and skill development. Giving them playing time is obviously important to reinforce thise lessons and give repitition. But an undeveloped or underdeveloped player isn't going to blossom merely with an increases role. The players we gave up were developed, they were ready. We just didn't have/give them a role to seize

 

[bleedblue1223]

When I think of development, I think more about coaching and skill development. Giving them playing time is obviously important to reinforce thise lessons and give repitition. But an undeveloped or underdeveloped player isn't going to blossom merely with an increases role. The players we gave up were developed, they were ready. We just didn't have/give them a role to seize

Those things are linked together and fall under development for me.

 

[Majorityof1]

Those things are linked together and fall under development for me.

Ok. That's like saying the chef didn't cook a meal properly just because you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Those D were developed, they were fully cooked. We just didn't want to give them an expanded role (eat) but they were ready.

They immediately made an impact with no further development on their new teams. If a player isn't developed properly, they don't go to a new team and immediately contribute at a high level.

If we sign 30-year old Pesce and give him a lesser role and jerk him around the lineup are we screwing with his development?

 

[bleedblue1223]

Proper development for me is understanding what their strengths and weaknesses are, when they are ready for a bigger role and when they aren't, knowing when they can push through their mistakes, and when they need to be pulled back to a lesser role.

I don't see us having different views of what is included in development is worth an argument. You have your view, I have mine.

 

[Majorityof1]

Proper development for me is understanding what their strengths and weaknesses are, when they are ready for a bigger role and when they aren't, knowing when they can push through their mistakes, and when they need to be pulled back to a lesser role.

I don't see us having different views of what is included in development is worth an argument. You have your view, I have mine.

And yet you keep arguing. I don't care what you consider development. I care about drilling down to where the Blues messed up with thise players. And whether you call it development or whatever, doesn't much matter.

The mistake was not recognizing they were ready for an expanded role, not giving it to then, and giving up on them instead. Call it whatever you want. It's not something we currently have to worry about with Lindstein but might down the road with Kessel.

 

[Xerloris]

I think bigger issue (and you touch on it) is our failure to develop defensemen, particularly at nhl level. I blame MVR specifically, but that responsibility falls on Berube and army too. When Dunn and Walman and Miko all blossom after leaving, in way that they weren’t while here, that is the bigger issue to me.

I like this post and agree. hitch knew how to handle defensemen, Berube obviously did not. Not knocking berube for this but it was obviously a weakness.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don't disagree, but it does matter that Tolvanen went on waivers on December 11 while Kapanen was a waivers pickup less than a week before the deadline. ... The organization was in two very different places when those guys went through waivers so it isn't like both came available simultaneously and we just chose Kap over Tolvanen. Those were two completely independent decisions. It's fair to criticize the decision to pass on Tolvanen, but I don't think the eventual Kap claim is at all relevant to that decision.

One other thing to consider at the time: we were up near the cap when Tolvanen was waived [because ... we've usually been up near the cap really early, with virtually no flexibility to make moves as a result and assignments to/from the minors have to be dollar-for-dollar in some way], so we didn't have room to just tack his salary on without clearing equal dollars (or more). If we'd have waived someone and they went unclaimed, we'd be stuck and have to assign someone to the minors to get back under; that would have meant clearing Tolvanen's salary + some more given the cap charge that would still apply.

Kapanen, we'd cleared cap space so we could claim him straight-up. That was a much easier move to make.

 

[Celtic Note]

One other thing to consider at the time: we were up near the cap when Tolvanen was waived [because ... we've usually been up near the cap really early, with virtually no flexibility to make moves as a result and assignments to/from the minors have to be dollar-for-dollar in some way], so we didn't have room to just tack his salary on without clearing equal dollars (or more). If we'd have waived someone and they went unclaimed, we'd be stuck and have to assign someone to the minors to get back under; that would have meant clearing Tolvanen's salary + some more given the cap charge that would still apply.

Kapanen, we'd cleared cap space so we could claim him straight-up. That was a much easier move to make.

This is an example (though there are likely much better ones) of why you don’t want to be pressed firmly up against the cap when you are not contending. Having flexibility isn’t the worst thing in the world.

 

[bleedblue1223]

This is an example (though there are likely much better ones) of why you don’t want to be pressed firmly up against the cap when you are not contending. Having flexibility isn’t the worst thing in the world.

Yeah, or random trade opportunities that come up. Easier to make those deals when you can just take on those caps hits, as opposed to making it cap neutral. I think that's one of the reasons Army has basically said we won't be a cap team next season. Not that we are on a tight budget, but to take advantage of opportunities as the present themselves.