Reactions to Army's Press Conference

[Xerloris]

The Avs got lucky with Binner getting hurt.

To be fair the Avs went out and created their own luck with that one.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

i don't think he will buy out krug because he still sees him as having value, even if less than his contract. he said he wouldn't rule out buyout but also mentioned he has given out signing bonuses and would give out nmc, all things he doesn't like doing. and he talked about how buyout is wasting money and he would have hard time recommending that in general. i'd be fairly shocked if we buy out krug this summer.

he also basically saidwithoutsaying that we aren't gonna be a cap team until he thinks that we are further along in rewhatever and reiterated the longterm plan is what rules still, so i wouldn't be holding my breath for us to bring in montour or skej or any other big money guy older than about 27.

Staying below the cap matches with his deadline comments insinuating the Blues would be willing to take some bad debt for prospects. Also leads me to expect a lower finish next season.

 

[Eldon Reid]

Personally I don't see a buyout happening this year. The buyout isn't going to help much with the cap. Let's use the 3 people most want to buyout.


Faulk is 6.5 AAV for 3 more years.

Buyout 3.28 mill, 3.52 mill 3.52 mill, and 3 years at 1.52 mill all the way to 29-30

Krug is 6.5 AAV for 3 more years (he has more salary remaining than Faulk 21 to 14 roughly)

Buyout 333k, 2.33 mill, 2.83 mill and 3 years at 2.33 mill all the way to 29-30

Hayes at 3.52 mill

Buyout 2.24 mil, 2.24 mill, 2 years at 666k

So only one with much saving is Krug. I think both Hayes & Faulk would be easier to trade and retain that same money on.

I can see him being aggressive on trade market. There is only handful of players that are UFA I would be interested in. This is based on years and salary. I don't want to just go all in and sign any UFA.

Stephenson
Monahan
Lindholm

Wingers (top end with some lower end players to fill in bottom 6 with Sunny out)(not top priority)
Marchessault
Sprong
Martinook
Blueger


Defense just needs an overhaul. I am not messing with that.

 

[MissouriMook]

Personally I don't see a buyout happening this year. The buyout isn't going to help much with the cap. Let's use the 3 people most want to buyout.


Faulk is 6.5 AAV for 3 more years.

Buyout 3.28 mill, 3.52 mill 3.52 mill, and 3 years at 1.52 mill all the way to 29-30

Krug is 6.5 AAV for 3 more years (he has more salary remaining than Faulk 21 to 14 roughly)

Buyout 333k, 2.33 mill, 2.83 mill and 3 years at 2.33 mill all the way to 29-30

Hayes at 3.52 mill

Buyout 2.24 mil, 2.24 mill, 2 years at 666k

So only one with much saving is Krug. I think both Hayes & Faulk would be easier to trade and retain that same money on.

I can see him being aggressive on trade market. There is only handful of players that are UFA I would be interested in. This is based on years and salary. I don't want to just go all in and sign any UFA.

Stephenson
Monahan
Lindholm

Wingers (top end with some lower end players to fill in bottom 6 with Sunny out)(not top priority)
Marchessault
Sprong
Martinook
Blueger


Defense just needs an overhaul. I am not messing with that.

I agree with you that Krug would be the only one who makes sense, and even that would make more sense in June of 2025.

I’ve wondered out loud if he was referring to someone not on the roster, where we trade someone like Krug for a bad contract with one year left and just buy that player out in lieu of retaining for three years on Krug.

 

[Celtic Note]

I wanted to look back at the Cup winning teams and see if there was any chance of the Blues winning a Cup with their current strategy which seems to completely avoid any bottoming out (top 5 or so pick).

Of the last 15 Cup winners, 14 had two or more top 5 picks. The average of those 9 winners is 2.667 top 5 draft picks. So, 2-3 seasons where you had to play pretty bad. Only 1 out of 15 didn’t have a single top 5 pick leading up to their Cup win.

Pittsburg - 5
Chicago - 3
Boston - 2
LA - 3
Washington - 3
St. Louis - 2
Tampa - 3
Colorado - 3 (4 if you decide to include Duschene)
Vegas - 0 (did have one 6th overall, but I excluded every pick after 5 for everyone else, so 0 it is)

The Blues and Boston, only had two. I would view that as the minimum, as Vegas is such an outlier with the expansion draft.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Re: Boston - the Bruins did have 2 top-5 picks on the Cup-winning roster. One was Tyler Seguin (2nd, 2010) who was Toronto's pick acquired when the Bruins traded Phil Kessel, the other was Blake Wheeler (4th, 2004) who was taken by Phoenix but signed as a FA by Boston in 2008 when Wheeler left college and didn't sign with the Coyotes. Neither one was really a product of the Bruins "being bad" and getting high picks as a result.

That said, Boston did have 2 top-5 picks in the ~15 years leading up to 2011: Joe Thornton (1st, 1997) and Phil Kessel (5th, 2006) but neither one was on that Cup-winning roster. Thornton had been gone 5 years, and once you go through that trade tree you finally end up with Andrew Ference who was on the 2011 roster. So ... helped, I guess, but as a 2nd-pairing defensemen with a lot of other wasted pieces along the way.

I don't know if that changes anything in the above notes, but my initial reaction on seeing Boston there was really? and when I looked at things it was oh, yeah ... that did happen.

 

[stl76]

I wanted to look back at the Cup winning teams and see if there was any chance of the Blues winning a Cup with their current strategy which seems to completely avoid any bottoming out (top 5 or so pick).

Of the last 15 Cup winners, 14 had two or more top 5 picks. The average of those 9 winners is 2.667 top 5 draft picks. So, 2-3 seasons where you had to play pretty bad. Only 1 out of 15 didn’t have a single top 5 pick leading up to their Cup win.

Pittsburg - 5
Chicago - 3
Boston - 2
LA - 3
Washington - 3
St. Louis - 2
Tampa - 3
Colorado - 3 (4 if you decide to include Duschene)
Vegas - 0 (did have one 6th overall, but I excluded every pick after 5 for everyone else, so 0 it is)

The Blues and Boston, only had two. I would view that as the minimum, as Vegas is such an outlier with the expansion draft.

Blues had at least 3, but only one of which they drafted: Pietrangelo, Schenn, Bouwmeester.

 

[TheOrganist]

The Blues will not be drafting their next number 1 defenseman with the current plan in place. They will have to trade from their forward surplus. And even then the odds that guy turns into Pietrangelo is doubtful. Guys like Zdeno Chara do not make it to free agency anymore. And almost unanimously the elite D of the last decade (sans Duncan Keith off the top of my head) have been top 5 picks. The next wave of contending Blues teams will look very different from the historical norm.

 

[Celtic Note]

I was going to go into the nuances of that Boston situation, but then I would have to look through everyone’s past and I just didn’t have time to do that.

Regardless, they still had two cracks at top 5 even of it was essentially the same pick…sort of like how Vladdy was essentially the same puck as Rundblad.

 

[Majorityof1]

The Blues will not be drafting their next number 1 defenseman with the current plan in place. They will have to trade from their forward surplus. And even then the odds that guy turns into Pietrangelo is doubtful. Guys like Zdeno Chara do not make it to free agency anymore. And almost unanimously the elite D of the last decade (sans Duncan Keith off the top of my head) have been top 5 picks. The next wave of contending Blues teams will look very different from the historical norm.

Fox -66th, Josi - 38th, 2x Karlson -15th, Giordano- undrafted, Burns 20th. Keith -54th.

I mean, that's 7 if the last 10 Norris winners. Hughes, the odds on favorite for this year was 7th.

Not sure how you define elite, but I'll take. Norris winner even if they skew offensive.

 

[Celtic Note]

Blues had at least 3, but only one of which they drafted: Pietrangelo, Schenn, Bouwmeester.

I was just looking at top 5 picks. For the Blues, we had two in that regard. It took those two tries to land one elite player. So I think there are some merits to the notion that you aren’t guaranteed to land great players on any given top pick.

There is also a truth in that the more top picks you land, the more likely you are to land an elite or multiple elite players.

It also means your subsequent round picks are higher, which should also help your drafting. It seems to me that is a good benefit as there seem to be players that fall out of the 1st round for some reason and later become really good players (I have no evidence to back that up, but I have noticed that some really good players come out of the top third or fourth of the second round).

 

[Sgt Schultz]

I guess my question for Army is that if the fans will not support crater/tank mode for any length of time, how long will those same fans support a team NOT bottoming out but also not making the playoffs repetitively? If the fan support is so linked to success, I would think the sand will run out of either hourglass, just on different time frames.

I'm not saying he is right or wrong about his assessment of the fanbase's tolerance for losing (I have not lived in St. Louis since 1988). But if he is right, it would seem to follow that there is some urgency in at least making the playoffs in 2024-25 after swinging and missing for two straight seasons.

At some point, winning but not winning enough looks a lot like losing for people whose support is based primarily on the success level of the team. Mediocrity may take longer to tax their patience, but it will do so eventually, if his assumption is correct.

 

[stl76]

I was just looking at top 5 picks. For the Blues, we had two in that regard. It took those two tries to land one elite player. So I think there are some merits to the notion that you aren’t guaranteed to land great players on any given top pick.

There is also a truth in that the more top picks you land, the more likely you are to land an elite or multiple elite players.

It also means your subsequent round picks are higher, which should also help your drafting. It seems to me that is a good benefit as there seem to be players that fall out of the 1st round for some reason and later become really good players (I have no evidence to back that up, but I have noticed that some really good players come out of the top third or fourth of the second round).

Gotcha, misunderstood the point of your post.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I wanted to look back at the Cup winning teams and see if there was any chance of the Blues winning a Cup with their current strategy which seems to completely avoid any bottoming out (top 5 or so pick).

Of the last 15 Cup winners, 14 had two or more top 5 picks. The average of those 9 winners is 2.667 top 5 draft picks. So, 2-3 seasons where you had to play pretty bad. Only 1 out of 15 didn’t have a single top 5 pick leading up to their Cup win.

Pittsburg - 5
Chicago - 3
Boston - 2
LA - 3
Washington - 3
St. Louis - 2
Tampa - 3
Colorado - 3 (4 if you decide to include Duschene)
Vegas - 0 (did have one 6th overall, but I excluded every pick after 5 for everyone else, so 0 it is)

The Blues and Boston, only had two. I would view that as the minimum, as Vegas is such an outlier with the expansion draft.

Are these all native draft picks? For the Blues I think Schenn is one of the two, acquired via trade. That information is needed to make more sense of this analysis.

 

[bleedblue1223]

If our next core fails to win a Cup, but reaches the conference finals on at least a couple occasions, or matches the level of the Pronger/MacInnis years, would that be a success or failure?

Would people prefer a riskier approach of trying to get higher picks and better individual talent through tanking, at the risk of it not being successful?

 

[Majorityof1]

Are these all native draft picks? For the Blues I think Schenn is one of the two, acquired via trade. That information is needed to make more sense of this analysis.

I would assume it's if the team had a top 5 pick in the past X years, not how many top 5 picks were on the team. Eichel on Vegas was a #2OA but Vegas didn't pick him. So they had 0 top 5 picks they made

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, those are 2 different analyses. One being how bad did Cup winners have to get to be rebuilt. Lottery, trades, and compensation picks can throw this off a bit. The other being how many players that were top 5 picks play on that team. Both have some flaws, maybe those players drafted never had an impact on the Cup winner, but that team also benefited from earlier 2nds, or maybe those players that were top 5 picks no longer played a role in line with that draft pedigree. Schenn and Bouwmeester played important roles, but roles you don't need a top 5 pick to play.

I think you can without either, it is certainly more difficult though.

 

[ezcreepin]

If our next core fails to win a Cup, but reaches the conference finals on at least a couple occasions, or matches the level of the Pronger/MacInnis years, would that be a success or failure?

Would people prefer a riskier approach of trying to get higher picks and better individual talent through tanking, at the risk of it not being successful?

The "riskier" approach is always better if you're talking about the future of a franchise. If you're talking in terms of maintaining a playoff streak or having "a chance to win," then you can probably go through free agency and make the playoffs with a meh roster most years.

The challenge for the Blues is going to be getting a #1 defenseman soon or trading for a potential 1st pairing guy and supplanting the rest of the defense with suitable players. There just isn't enough cohesion right now and focusing so much on puck movement or scoring from the backend has created an overall bad performance with respect to defense. The goal at this point is to find a #1/1st pairing defenseman (right or left side), get a legitimate 2nd pairing guy (right or left side OR Parayko), and find a coach that will strategically improve the way we defend and attack. Once that's figured out, then you can look at other trades or FA acquisitions.

 

[Eldon Reid]

Are these all native draft picks? For the Blues I think Schenn is one of the two, acquired via trade. That information is needed to make more sense of this analysis.

Not native. 2 of 4 were acquired by trade.

EJ was #1 by Blues but traded away
Jbo was #3 by Florida
Pietro was #4 by Blues
Schenn was #5 by Kings

 

[Majorityof1]

Not native. 2 of 3 were acquired by trade.

Jbo was #3 by Florida
Pietro was #4 by Blues
Schenn was #5 by Kings

EJ was #1 OA. Even though we traded him, we had 2 Top 5 picks (EJ and Petro) over the last 15 years or whatever prior to our Cup win.

 

[Eldon Reid]

EJ was #1 OA. Even though we traded him, we had 2 Top 5 picks (EJ and Petro) over the last 15 years or whatever prior to our Cup win.

Oh I was going based on players on the cup winning team. Whoops.

 

[Celtic Note]

Are these all native draft picks? For the Blues I think Schenn is one of the two, acquired via trade. That information is needed to make more sense of this analysis.

This was just a natives analysis. I think there was a “how many top 5 were on the team” analysis previously.

Fox -66th, Josi - 38th, 2x Karlson -15th, Giordano- undrafted, Burns 20th. Keith -54th.

I mean, that's 7 if the last 10 Norris winners. Hughes, the odds on favorite for this year was 7th.

Not sure how you define elite, but I'll take. Norris winner even if they skew offensive.

Thanks for gunning this down. Super interesting.

 

[Blueston]

The "riskier" approach is always better if you're talking about the future of a franchise...

100% disagree. Idea that it's better for the future of franchise to tear it down and suck for years is always best path is a fallacy. Even if it marginally increases odds of winning a Cup, which I'm not saying it does, that doesn't mean it is best path as the chances of winning a Cup isn't the only thing franchises should consider.

You wouldn't tell someone they should put all their $ in powerball since that is clearest path to becoming a multimillionaire, as if they did that they would end up hungry and homeless and broke far more often than they would cash that golden ticket. If team sucks for years and then moves to new market and wins there, is that best outcome for franchise? If they suck for years and their fan base slowly atrophies, is that best for franchise?

Seems like we path undertaken by Dallas or Boston might be more desirable than what they are going through in Buffalo or Columbus, even if none of those teams win a Cup in next decade.

 

[TheOrganist]

Fox -66th, Josi - 38th, 2x Karlson -15th, Giordano- undrafted, Burns 20th. Keith -54th.

I mean, that's 7 if the last 10 Norris winners. Hughes, the odds on favorite for this year was 7th.

Not sure how you define elite, but I'll take. Norris winner even if they skew offensive.

Top 5. Top 10. Tomato, Tomata.

The point is the team is not going to be built from the blueline out more than likely barring something unforeseen...i.e. hitting on some incredibly good defenseman in the draft where you don't typically find them. Fox situation was also pretty unique.

 

[Celtic Note]

I guess my question for Army is that if the fans will not support crater/tank mode for any length of time, how long will those same fans support a team NOT bottoming out but also not making the playoffs repetitively? If the fan support is so linked to success, I would think the sand will run out of either hourglass, just on different time frames.

I'm not saying he is right or wrong about his assessment of the fanbase's tolerance for losing (I have not lived in St. Louis since 1988). But if he is right, it would seem to follow that there is some urgency in at least making the playoffs in 2024-25 after swinging and missing for two straight seasons.

At some point, winning but not winning enough looks a lot like losing for people whose support is based primarily on the success level of the team. Mediocrity may take longer to tax their patience, but it will do so eventually, if his assumption is correct.

And this is where I don’t want us to go. I grew tired of playoffs but little playoff success (admitting we were spoiled in that regard as Blues fans). At some point I don’t want to be teased.

Selfishly, I really want to see another Cup in my lifetime. I have had my fill of making the playoffs and maybe my perspective is biased towards my perfectionism.