Reactions to Army's Press Conference

[Xerloris]

Are you implying that Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester on February 10, the night before Bouwmeester collapsed on the bench? Because if you are, I'm calling bullshit. Armstrong had intentionally traded for and then extended Faulk, and then intentionally traded Schenn. He'd extended Bouwmeester for a single year in April, 2019 but hadn't extended Bouwmeester in February, 2020. He didn't do any of that and not have a plan.

Do we know the details of it? Obviously no, but I find it difficult to believe that Armstrong didn't have a plan for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester. And, I find it difficult to believe that he had a plan for Bouwmeester, JBo goes down, and he has to scrap that plan and resort to "I have to go get a guy who's kind of clearly not as good, then fork out 4 years, $13.1 million for him while the world is shut down and I have no clue when we're going to get back to playing hockey and what the cap is going to look like, because I need a future replacement for JBo and I need that now." Cause, if that's all the planning he'd done to prepare for when JBo wasn't going to be on this roster, ... oof.

Yes, trading what amounted to peanuts for Faulk was only done as a plan to replace Jbo and obviously NOT Pietrangelo, the other RHD that Armstrong probably knew was going to walk in FA that coming summer.

As far as Jay only getting one year deals, let me introduce you to the 35+ contract of the NHL at the time.

WHAT HAPPENS IF A PLAYER
ON A 35+ CONTRACT RETIRES?

​

If a player who is not on a 35+ contract retires, then his cap hit disappears.

Previously, if any player on a multiyear 35+ contract retired, his cap hit remained. The 2020 changes to the CBA added conditions to the rule. Now, if a player who is on a 35+ contract retires, his cap hit will only remain in full if it is a multiyear deal, and:

1. The contract has signing bonuses beyond the first year, OR

2. The salary is front-loaded in the year-to-year breakdown

The cap hit also cannot be reduced via a buyout, and if a player on a 35+ contract is assigned to the minors beyond the first year of the contract it would only reduce his cap hit by $100,000.

Kind of makes perfect sense why he would go year to year on a 35+ contract. Now that doesn't matter so much.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don't understand the point of your posts if you're not representing your actual opinions.

Sometimes I throw stuff out to get people to think.

Again: I don't think Armstrong had no plan on what to do with Bouwmeester when he was done playing here / his level of play eventually fell off, as was alleged above. My opinions on Armstrong's work are well-documented, and I'm not buying that. Armstrong may have had a shitty plan, I don't know if it was shitty or not because I don't know what the specific plan was re: Bouwmeester, but I believe he still had a plan for what he was going to do when the day came and JBo wasn't on the team.

But if I'm wrong, if most of us are wrong, if Louie is right and Armstrong really didn't have a plan for what he was going to do in the post-Bouwmeester era, and all the more thought he gave it was "Scandella's been here 11 games, but JBo may not be back and the world's shut down, ... I gotta give him 4 years and I gotta do it now," then that should raise a whole lot of concerns about what kind of planning Armstrong is doing in general.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Sometimes I throw stuff out to get people to think.

Again: I don't think Armstrong had no plan on what to do with Bouwmeester when he was done playing here / his level of play eventually fell off, as was alleged above. My opinions on Armstrong's work are well-documented, and I'm not buying that. Armstrong may have had a shitty plan, I don't know if it was shitty or not because I don't know what the specific plan was re: Bouwmeester, but I believe he still had a plan for what he was going to do when the day came and JBo wasn't on the team.

But if I'm wrong, if most of us are wrong, if Louie is right and Armstrong really didn't have a plan for what he was going to do in the post-Bouwmeester era, and all the more thought he gave it was "Scandella's been here 11 games, but JBo may not be back and the world's shut down, ... I gotta give him 4 years and I gotta do it now," then that should raise a whole lot of concerns about what kind of planning Armstrong is doing in general.

@Xerloris brings up a point that I had forgotten - Faulk initially was playing(and struggled) with Pietrangelo (I think, it's almost 4 years so I can be way wrong) as a LD. Is it possible that he could have been Armstrong's replacement for Bouwmeester and he was viewing Scandella to be a solution for a lower pairing? Absolutely. I don't think the Faulk trade was made to insure the Blues would have a contingency plan for when Pietrangelo left - if it was they would not have signed Krug to help replace his offensive production and I believe they would have targeted someone else.

It could also be that Armstrong's target to improve the D to eventually replace Bouwmeester was Scandella given that there was a conditional pick sent to Montreal if he signed before October 7th, 2020. Which doesn't make sense since he could have been had for less a month prior. Bouwmeester having to medically retire shouldn't mean Scandella is de facto extended.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Sometimes I throw stuff out to get people to think.

Again: I don't think Armstrong had no plan on what to do with Bouwmeester when he was done playing here / his level of play eventually fell off, as was alleged above. My opinions on Armstrong's work are well-documented, and I'm not buying that. Armstrong may have had a shitty plan, I don't know if it was shitty or not because I don't know what the specific plan was re: Bouwmeester, but I believe he still had a plan for what he was going to do when the day came and JBo wasn't on the team.

But if I'm wrong, if most of us are wrong, if Louie is right and Armstrong really didn't have a plan for what he was going to do in the post-Bouwmeester era, and all the more thought he gave it was "Scandella's been here 11 games, but JBo may not be back and the world's shut down, ... I gotta give him 4 years and I gotta do it now," then that should raise a whole lot of concerns about what kind of planning Armstrong is doing in general.

From where I sit and this is entirely my opinion, I think all he does is 'go fishing'. He sees what's out there, what he can get for it, what he has to spend, how he feels about what he's spending and what his Magic Table has to say about it. If that's what is considered a Plan, then he has one; it's not based on needs or wants but what he sees that he can get cheap or that he feels is a bargain, both according to his Magic Table that probably even boggles the average Vedic Astrologer or Master Mason.

 

[Celtic Note]

I'd pushback on this. I don't agree that you can't accumulate equivalent/comparable assets to what they got in the expansion draft via a non-teardown-to-the-basement rebuild. They acquired a lot of assets, but you have to consider that they also didn't have any prospect pool whatsoever when they got them. We obviously can't use an expansion draft, but I believe that a re-tool type process can absolutely yield a similar amount/quality of prospects/picks and roster players.

Here are the picks Vegas acquired via expansion draft (taking picks to select/avoid specific players and then subsequent deals where they flipped a guy they selected for picks in the next few weeks).

2017: 13th overall, 15th overall, 45th overall, a 5th round pick, and a 6th round pick

2018: 4th round pick, 4th round pick

2019: 2nd round pick, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, 3rd round pick, 5th round pick

2020: 2nd round pick, 2nd round pick

They also acquired 21 year old Shea Theodore (former 26th overall pick) and 20 year old Alex Tuch (former 1st round pick) in direct expansion draft deals.

That's a lot of assets. But without an existing prospect pool, that didn't start them with some insane war chest. That gave them a couple 20-22 year old 1st round prospects, two extra early-mid 1st round picks for 2017 and then a bundle of 2nd rounders a few years out.

They got some good players too, but I wouldn't say that the core they got was more appealing than our current core. I think Thomas is a more valuable asset (either for trade or building around) than any roster player they drafted. I think Buch is a better player (and likely better trade asset) than any roster player they drafted. Parayko is a better player than any NHL-aged D man they drafted. Opinions vary on Kyrou, but he is at least on par with the best of the guys they drafted.

They drafted some supplemental guys like Haula, Schmidt, Collin Miller, etc that were eventually moved for moderate assets, but are those guys any different than the Leddy, Hayes, Saad, Faulk, etc in our lineup that will eventually be flipped for moderate assets?

They came out of the draft with Fleury and no heir apparent in net. Is that really a better situation than Binner/Hofer with Zherenko lurking in the minors.

Vegas did a great job in their expansion draft, but it isn't like they came out of it with a lineup of stars, a top end prospect pool, and a boatload of future picks. they completely botched the 6th overall pick (Cody Glass) and traded him 4 years later for redemption project Nolan Patrick who retired after playing just 25 games for the Knights.

I don't think the fact that they got all those assets at once negates that you can accumulate a similar quality core and futures war chest over a several year period without an expansion draft.

I'd take our current prospect pool (and upcoming draft capital) over the prospect pool (and upcoming draft capital) Vegas had after the expansion draft.

I'd take Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, and Binner today over the 2017 versions of Karlsson, Marchessault, Smith, and Fleury. I can see an argument the other way, but Thomas tips the scale for me.

I'd take the supporting cast of Vegas (and their moderate trade value) over ours for sure, but I don't think that the eventual trades of these guys is what fueled the success they have had.

The guts of their Cup team was built using the quantity/quality of futures assets we have drafted (and have the picks to continue to draft) in the coming years.

They got their #1 center 4 years after the expansion draft by moving an actualized Tuch, the player they drafted with their own 2019 1st round pick and then future picks. Those guys weren't made expendable by a boatload of assets obtained in the expansion draft. We should have the assets to make such a deal in the future.

They got their #1 D in UFA.

They got their #2 center for a 5th round pick.

They got their #1 winger for Brannstrom (a 1st obtained in expansion), a guy they signed as a UFA, and a future 2nd.

They traded a 4th for Hill and signed Thompson as an undrafted UFA.

Now they have mortgaged way more futures to bring in non-rental Hertl and then a rent-to-extend Hanifin to try and extend the window.

Vegas has put on an absolute clinic in building a team via trades and free agency. I genuinely don't believe that their expansion draft haul was so good that other teams couldn't replicate it. Any team that can accumulate a moderate amount of surplus futures assets should be able to make the types of moves they did.

They have been masterful in some of their trades. It’s truly impressive what they have done.

I think it’s a fair stance that we could acquire many comparable assets. But to the Bolded in particular, what is the liklihood that we can exploit an expansion draft or comparable situation to land those two players, particularly Theodore? I am not saying it’s impossible. But there were a lot of unique circumstances that make me wonder how realistic it is to look at Vegas as an example of what we can do. We certainly can land an expensive and aged defenseman like Faulk. But what about an up and comer that has many years of service he can offer? The expansion draft forced some hands or at least made them more flexible than they otherwise would have been and especially flexible with one particular team. Maybe I am too focused on the specifics for some, but the opportunity that was there was not common in my estimation. I would welcome contradictory evidence however.

You brought up obtaining a #1D and it spurred a thought. How likely are we to be able to land a top player via UFA if we are pretty set against NMCs and bonuses. Even in the case of Petro we were only willing to flex so much. So how many elite players would be willing to accept terms that are not incredibly advantageous to themselves? Will we be willing to flex more?

Another item related to Vegas and how they won a Cup that I am particularly interested in knowing is if Army and our ownership group would be willing to exploit the LITR loopholes that Vegas has. There are risks to taking that approach. Would we be willing to be so ballsy. Would we so willing to take those risks?

Also I have the question of whether we have the pro scouts to find those young diamonds in the rough. I am trying to think of guys we either signed or acquired that came in and took massive strides in their games. I am drawing a blank. Most of the guys I can think of were vets with proven track records and the age to go with it. We got Do we have any Theodore’s, Karelsson’s or Marchesseauts (sp)? Maybe Sunny but he was only a third liner. I feel like we have lost more of those types than we have gained.

 

[Blueston]

I'd pushback on this. I don't agree that you can't accumulate equivalent/comparable assets to what they got in the expansion draft via a non-teardown-to-the-basement rebuild. They acquired a lot of assets, but you have to consider that they also didn't have any prospect pool whatsoever when they got them. We obviously can't use an expansion draft, but I believe that a re-tool type process can absolutely yield a similar amount/quality of prospects/picks and roster players.

Here are the picks Vegas acquired via expansion draft (taking picks to select/avoid specific players and then subsequent deals where they flipped a guy they selected for picks in the next few weeks).

2017: 13th overall, 15th overall, 45th overall, a 5th round pick, and a 6th round pick

2018: 4th round pick, 4th round pick

2019: 2nd round pick, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, 3rd round pick, 5th round pick

2020: 2nd round pick, 2nd round pick

They also acquired 21 year old Shea Theodore (former 26th overall pick) and 20 year old Alex Tuch (former 1st round pick) in direct expansion draft deals.

That's a lot of assets. But without an existing prospect pool, that didn't start them with some insane war chest. That gave them a couple 20-22 year old 1st round prospects, two extra early-mid 1st round picks for 2017 and then a bundle of 2nd rounders a few years out.

They got some good players too, but I wouldn't say that the core they got was more appealing than our current core. I think Thomas is a more valuable asset (either for trade or building around) than any roster player they drafted. I think Buch is a better player (and likely better trade asset) than any roster player they drafted. Parayko is a better player than any NHL-aged D man they drafted. Opinions vary on Kyrou, but he is at least on par with the best of the guys they drafted.

They drafted some supplemental guys like Haula, Schmidt, Collin Miller, etc that were eventually moved for moderate assets, but are those guys any different than the Leddy, Hayes, Saad, Faulk, etc in our lineup that will eventually be flipped for moderate assets?

They came out of the draft with Fleury and no heir apparent in net. Is that really a better situation than Binner/Hofer with Zherenko lurking in the minors.

Vegas did a great job in their expansion draft, but it isn't like they came out of it with a lineup of stars, a top end prospect pool, and a boatload of future picks. they completely botched the 6th overall pick (Cody Glass) and traded him 4 years later for redemption project Nolan Patrick who retired after playing just 25 games for the Knights.

I don't think the fact that they got all those assets at once negates that you can accumulate a similar quality core and futures war chest over a several year period without an expansion draft.

I'd take our current prospect pool (and upcoming draft capital) over the prospect pool (and upcoming draft capital) Vegas had after the expansion draft.

I'd take Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, and Binner today over the 2017 versions of Karlsson, Marchessault, Smith, and Fleury. I can see an argument the other way, but Thomas tips the scale for me.

I'd take the supporting cast of Vegas (and their moderate trade value) over ours for sure, but I don't think that the eventual trades of these guys is what fueled the success they have had.

The guts of their Cup team was built using the quantity/quality of futures assets we have drafted (and have the picks to continue to draft) in the coming years.

They got their #1 center 4 years after the expansion draft by moving an actualized Tuch, the player they drafted with their own 2019 1st round pick and then future picks. Those guys weren't made expendable by a boatload of assets obtained in the expansion draft. We should have the assets to make such a deal in the future.

They got their #1 D in UFA.

They got their #2 center for a 5th round pick.

They got their #1 winger for Brannstrom (a 1st obtained in expansion), a guy they signed as a UFA, and a future 2nd.

They traded a 4th for Hill and signed Thompson as an undrafted UFA.

Now they have mortgaged way more futures to bring in non-rental Hertl and then a rent-to-extend Hanifin to try and extend the window.

Vegas has put on an absolute clinic in building a team via trades and free agency. I genuinely don't believe that their expansion draft haul was so good that other teams couldn't replicate it. Any team that can accumulate a moderate amount of surplus futures assets should be able to make the types of moves they did.

Vegas doesn't get enough credit for how smart they have been. They have done great job in pro scouting, they've been bold in pulling trigger on deals to acquire front line players, and they understand their market advantages and use them. i don't blame folks for rooting against them, but respect is due.

 

[Celtic Note]

Vegas doesn't get enough credit for how smart they have been. They have done great job in pro scouting, they've been bold in pulling trigger on deals to acquire front line players, and they understand their market advantages and use them. i don't blame folks for rooting against them, but respect is due.

I don’t care for them, I can’t care for that city, but they are killing it like a rare few.

 

[Blueston]

They have been masterful in some of their trades. It’s truly impressive what they have done.

I think it’s a fair stance that we could acquire many comparable assets. But to the Bolded in particular, what is the liklihood that we can exploit an expansion draft or comparable situation to land those two players, particularly Theodore? I am not saying it’s impossible. But there were a lot of unique circumstances that make me wonder how realistic it is to look at Vegas as an example of what we can do. We certainly can land an expensive and aged defenseman like Faulk. But what about an up and comer that has many years of service he can offer? The expansion draft forced some hands or at least made them more flexible than they otherwise would have been and especially flexible with one particular team. Maybe I am too focused on the specifics for some, but the opportunity that was there was not common in my estimation. I would welcome contradictory evidence however.

You brought up obtaining a #1D and it spurred a thought. How likely are we to be able to land a top player via UFA if we are pretty set against NMCs and bonuses. Even in the case of Petro we were only willing to flex so much. So how many elite players would be willing to accept terms that are not incredibly advantageous to themselves? Will we be willing to flex more?

Another item related to Vegas and how they won a Cup that I am particularly interested in knowing is if Army and our ownership group would be willing to exploit the LITR loopholes that Vegas has. There are risks to taking that approach. Would we be willing to be so ballsy. Would we so willing to take those risks?

Also I have the question of whether we have the pro scouts to find those young diamonds in the rough. I am trying to think of guys we either signed or acquired that came in and took massive strides in their games. I am drawing a blank. Most of the guys I can think of were vets with proven track records and the age to go with it. We got Do we have any Theodore’s, Karelsson’s or Marchesseauts (sp)? Maybe Sunny but he was only a third liner. I feel like we have lost more of those types than we have gained.

i think you are selling our pro scouts short. buchy, schenn, and ror all had arguably best years in the note. jaybo and leddy were both perfect fits and improved their trajectory.all of those guys were identified for key roles, generally higher in lineup than they had been playing, and excelled as expected.

 

[BlueDream]

i think you are selling our pro scouts short. buchy, schenn, and ror all had arguably best years in the note. jaybo and leddy were both perfect fits and improved their trajectory.all of those guys were identified for key roles, generally higher in lineup than they had been playing, and excelled as expected.

I don’t think a single one of those guys fit the bill as to what is being talked about here. Celtic Note is referring to diamonds in the rough.

Bouwmeester was a former 3rd overall pick, who was a very good player. Easily a top pair d-man that was 6’4 and one of the best skaters in the league. He was a known commodity. Good trade yes, but nothing about his impact was surprising.

Schenn, pretty similar. Former 5th overall pick that could play both wing and center. Physical and could score. Known commodity, his impact also wasn’t surprising.

ROR was known as a legit top 6 center, two-way beast. Did we know he would win Conn Smythe? Maybe not, but it’s not surprising either. He famously told Armstrong “let’s go win a Cup” on the phone after the trade and we basically viewed him as the missing piece. Again great trade, but I’m not sure how our pro scouts deserve a ton of credit for that. I and everyone else on this board could have told you that ROR is a difference maker.

Buchnevich, not quite sure he fits the bill either but I guess we’re getting closer. He was coming off a 48 point in 54 game season and a lot of people felt he was about to breakout. Look at the reactions to that trade - everyone knew the Rangers got fleeced because they were so fixated on adding more grit. Similar to ROR, I’m pretty sure everyone on this board could have confidently said that targeting Buchnevich was a good idea and he could be a legit top-line winger. But like I said, this one at least qualifies more than the other 3.

Leddy has worked out here better than I thought he would but he still is a multi-Cup winner that played big playoff minutes for both the Blackhawks and Islanders. I don’t consider him a diamond in the rough, especially since Celtic Note is referring to younger players, and we acquired him when he was 31. Known commodity around the league. And our LHD still isn’t resolved. We are STILL looking for that actual diamond in the rough there. Leddy is fine but he doesn’t move the needle enough.

So I think maybe one of those guys counts (Buch).

Look at what the Florida Panthers have done with guys like Montour, Forsling, Verhaege, Marchessault, etc. THAT is what elite pro scouting looks like, as nobody expected those guys to breakout and become top-line players like they did. I think that’s the difference, not that we haven’t made good trades.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

How likely are we to be able to land a top player via UFA if we are pretty set against NMCs and bonuses. Even in the case of Petro we were only willing to flex so much. So how many elite players would be willing to accept terms that are not incredibly advantageous to themselves? Will we be willing to flex more?

This is a really critical point. If it's an elite UFA, you know the market rate includes an NMC and signing bonus money. You can hate that, but saying well I'm not paying it isn't getting guys to come here and we've got prospects and a few good players, one day we'll have our shit together and you can help _______ isn't going to woo them over.

If a UFA we want has an offer from someone else and that other team is offering even just a full NTC with signing bonus money and all other things are equal, we better have one hell of a hook or they better have some longstanding desire to play here, otherwise, they're probably going to be $eeking out rea$on$ to $ettle in $t. Loui$.

 

[bleedblue1223]

While I don't think our pro scouts are bad, I don't think that part of our organization is particularly good, I'd say they are pretty much average. There have been a lot of good moves over the years, and others that really didn't work, but when you hit on the big ones, that's what's important, so that's why I say average. When I compare it to the amateur scouts, there's no Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, etc., guys that greatly exceed the typical player draft in that spot. Schenn, ROR, and Buchnevich all had moderate boosts in production. Some of that was just an increased role or being surrounded by better talent. They were known quantities, no diamonds in the rough type.

And how we've handled the defense in general hasn't been a great mark for Army and the pro scouts. I wouldn't even say it's one massive error, but a collection of smaller miscalculations that has led to the mess that we are in. I think they probably thought Parayko could blossom a bit offensively in a bigger role, and that didn't happen. I don't think they expected Krug to be the liability that he was, and for his scoring to be a lot higher during both 5v5 and PP. Maybe they thought the drop off from Petro to Faulk wasn't going to be as significant. And then with the younger guys, they didn't see the upside with giving Dunn or Walman a chance at a bigger role.

I think for any anti-Army crowd, that's the main issue that there would be broad agreement over. The defense has been a directionless mess. We went from a defensive core that had size, but those guys were also mostly good enough skaters and skilled enough with the puck. The Cup team clearly had a vision. We replaced Bouwmeester with Scandella, a much inferior replacement, but again, I can see the vision they had, even if flawed. I could even see the vision they had with where they were going, Dunn and Walman were both very good skaters and puck-movers, it was an acknowledgement that the league is shifting and prioritizing skating ability and puck moving ability will be key. And then the mess came.

Krug and Faulk are both on the smaller end and both have below average speed. They don't need to be blazing fast, but Petro being average speed isn't as big of a deal because of his size, reach, positioning, and overall ability with puck. Faulk can still be effective and has been at points here, but with Krug it's something that has exposed him IMO. Leddy is more of a like for like switch with Walman, and he's been good, so it doesn't bother me, his speed and puck ability fits with what I assumed the vision was, it would just be nice to have a younger version of him in Walman. And I know we soured on Dunn, but essentially moving out Dunn for Krug was a massive miscalculation by Army and the pro level scouts/advisors. Dunn would've been a good fit next to Faulk in a sheltered offensive role IMO, but that wasn't even the original plan with Krug, they put Krug with Parayko, which made 0 sense.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Kind of to that point, while Tolvanen wouldn't really drastically change our roster, having him as a waiver claim would've been a lot better than Kapanen.

 

[Brian39]

While I don't think our pro scouts are bad, I don't think that part of our organization is particularly good, I'd say they are pretty much average. There have been a lot of good moves over the years, and others that really didn't work, but when you hit on the big ones, that's what's important, so that's why I say average. When I compare it to the amateur scouts, there's no Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, etc., guys that greatly exceed the typical player draft in that spot. Schenn, ROR, and Buchnevich all had moderate boosts in production. Some of that was just an increased role or being surrounded by better talent. They were known quantities, no diamonds in the rough type.

And how we've handled the defense in general hasn't been a great mark for Army and the pro scouts. I wouldn't even say it's one massive error, but a collection of smaller miscalculations that has led to the mess that we are in. I think they probably thought Parayko could blossom a bit offensively in a bigger role, and that didn't happen. I don't think they expected Krug to be the liability that he was, and for his scoring to be a lot higher during both 5v5 and PP. Maybe they thought the drop off from Petro to Faulk wasn't going to be as significant. And then with the younger guys, they didn't see the upside with giving Dunn or Walman a chance at a bigger role.

I think for any anti-Army crowd, that's the main issue that there would be broad agreement over. The defense has been a directionless mess. We went from a defensive core that had size, but those guys were also mostly good enough skaters and skilled enough with the puck. The Cup team clearly had a vision. We replaced Bouwmeester with Scandella, a much inferior replacement, but again, I can see the vision they had, even if flawed. I could even see the vision they had with where they were going, Dunn and Walman were both very good skaters and puck-movers, it was an acknowledgement that the league is shifting and prioritizing skating ability and puck moving ability will be key. And then the mess came.

Krug and Faulk are both on the smaller end and both have below average speed. They don't need to be blazing fast, but Petro being average speed isn't as big of a deal because of his size, reach, positioning, and overall ability with puck. Faulk can still be effective and has been at points here, but with Krug it's something that has exposed him IMO. Leddy is more of a like for like switch with Walman, and he's been good, so it doesn't bother me, his speed and puck ability fits with what I assumed the vision was, it would just be nice to have a younger version of him in Walman. And I know we soured on Dunn, but essentially moving out Dunn for Krug was a massive miscalculation by Army and the pro level scouts/advisors. Dunn would've been a good fit next to Faulk in a sheltered offensive role IMO, but that wasn't even the original plan with Krug, they put Krug with Parayko, which made 0 sense.

Totally agree about the D. The decision(s) that moved us away from the big mobile D group from the Cup run to the small group we currently run out has been a disaster. I'm not sure whether this was a series of pro scouting mistakes targeting the wrong guys or an organizational philosophy, but I don't think anyone in the front office should escape all blame for the group being what it is today.

With that said, I think that the pro scouting staff deserves more credit on the forwards you mentioned.

Schenn had a career year his first season here. Each of his next 2 seasons saw him score at a higher pace than any year in Philly (although not quite the level he produced his first year here when he was 1C) and a lot of the increase was based on more even strength production. It's not a leap in production, but we correctly identified that he could be a bit better as a center than a winger. I understand why Philly had him playing where he was in their lineup, but you have to credit the pro scout staff for recognizing that we could squeeze more out of him.

ROR immediately had his career year with us. His previous career-best was 64 points. He had been playing at a 62 point pace in the 5 years leading up to the acquisition (starting with his career year) and had never played at a 70 point pace. He had 77 points in year 1 with us and played at a 70+ point pace in each of his 3 years here. He won his only Selke in year 1 and was top 5 in each of his first 4 years here (he had never finished top 5 before). He went from 'really good 2 way center' to an elite 2 way center and I view that as more than a modest change.

Buch's career best (the year before the acquisition) was a 72 point pace and then in his first year here he played at an 85 point pace. He followed that up with an 87 point pace the following year.

All 3 were already viewed as good players, but all 3 of them weren't trusted with roles we believed they could handle and all 3 greatly excelled in that increased role. I'd say that each of them moved up a 'tier' reputationally after we acquired them and the trade packages for Schenn and especially Buch indicate that there weren't a load of teams who had as much confidence in them as our pro scouting staff.

While the D overall has been bad, I will say that Leddy individually was a really good hit by the pro scouting staff. He looked downright washed in Detroit and was fading on the Isle. He's been a legit top 4 D man here in a role he'd never played before. I didn't think that was remotely possible based on his play in the year+ leading up to the trade. Not quite a diamond in the rough, but whoever thought his skillset would pair well with Parayko deserves a lot of credit.

 

[Brian39]

Kind of to that point, while Tolvanen wouldn't really drastically change our roster, having him as a waiver claim would've been a lot better than Kapanen.

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. We were 5 points out of a playoff spot in December and only 28 games into the season. Things were already looking rough, but the team hadn't thrown the towel in and committed to a full fire sale of all the rentals. Over the next 10 weeks, we dropped another 8 points out of the playoff race and sold multiple pieces.

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.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Totally agree about the D. The decision(s) that moved us away from the big mobile D group from the Cup run to the small group we currently run out has been a disaster. I'm not sure whether this was a series of pro scouting mistakes targeting the wrong guys or an organizational philosophy, but I don't think anyone in the front office should escape all blame for the group being what it is today.

With that said, I think that the pro scouting staff deserves more credit on the forwards you mentioned.

Schenn had a career year his first season here. Each of his next 2 seasons saw him score at a higher pace than any year in Philly (although not quite the level he produced his first year when he was 1C) and a lot of the increase was based on more even strength production. It's not a leap in production, but we correctly identified that he could be a bit better as a center than a winger. I understand why Philly had him playing where he was in their lineup, but you have to credit the pro scout staff for recognizing that we could squeeze more out of him.

ROR immediately had his career year with us. His previous career-best was 64 points. He had been playing at a 62 point pace in the 5 years leading up to the acquisition (starting with his career year) and had never played at a 70 point pace. He had 77 points in year 1 with us and played at a 70+ point pace in each of his 3 years here. He won his only Selke in year 1 and was top 5 in each of his first 4 years here (he had never finished top 5 before). He went from 'really good 2 way center' to an elite 2 way center and I view that as more than a modest change.

Buch's career best (the year before the acquisition) was a 72 point pace and then in his first year here he played at an 85 point pace. He followed that up with an 87 point pace the following year.

All 3 were already viewed as good players, but all 3 of them weren't trusted with roles we believed they could handle and all 3 greatly excelled in that increased role. I'd say that each of them moved up a 'tier' reputationally after we acquired them and the trade packages for Schenn and especially Buch indicate that there weren't a load of teams who had as much confidence in them as our pro scouting staff.

While the D overall has been bad, I will say that Leddy individually was a really good hit by the pro scouting staff. He looked downright washed in Detroit and was fading on the Isle. He's been a legit top 4 D man here in a role he'd never played before. I didn't think that was remotely possible based on his play in the year+ leading up to the trade. Not quite a diamond in the rough, but whoever thought his skillset would pair well with Parayko deserves a lot of credit.

That's fair. If I look at just the forwards, they've done an above average job at worst, and probably too dismissive to just say, they produced more because of bigger role. I could look at more and say Bozak was a very acquisition for a 3rd line center. Perron worked, but that may have been dumb luck, but they do get some credit for him coming back as much as he did. Sunny ended up being a good target. There just weren't many massive value pick-ups like some other teams may have. Boston with Zacha, acquisitions like that where you acquire someone and they find another level with you.

Maybe I'm too generous with Zacha since his Boston production is basically his 20/21 production, but he's now consistent in Boston and doing it over multiple full seasons.

 

[bleedblue1223]

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. We were 5 points out of a playoff spot in December and only 28 games into the season. Things were already looking rough, but the team hadn't thrown the towel in and committed to a full fire sale of all the rentals. Over the next 10 weeks, we dropped another 8 points out of the playoff race and sold multiple pieces.

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.

Also agree, that's why at the time, I didn't mind not picking up Tolvanen, and with Kap, it made more sense. I do think we tend to lean towards safer, more established options, and even if it was a choice between Tolvanen and Kapanen, which I agree, it wasn't, that difference is still pretty inconsequential to our overall standing.

 

[Celtic Note]

I think @BlueDream and @bleedblue1223 covered a lot of what I would have communicated. I don’t think our scouts are bad. They are ok to a bit above average and I think their strengths skew more toward forward evaluation. Defensively is less a strength and I think they are below average at goalie evaluations.

@Blueston notes some good trades we have made. I fully agree they were good. But as BlueDream and BleedBlue pointed out, these guys were relatively known quantities and don’t really fit the diamond in the rough type trade I think we will have to be able to make if we are not doing to bottom out.

Why I believe this is because of the state of our defense both on the NHL roster and in the system. While I think highly of our amateur scouts, I don’t think they are particularly strong at finding defensemen. Forwards and goalies? Yeah they are good maybe close to great. Even if they can find D, they really needed to do it yesterday or the day before. D take time to develop, much more so then forwards and we have a stable of forwards going or near ready to go. I don’t want to waste their window waiting on D. That puts us behind the 8 ball.

I already stated my thinking on free agency with regards to the Blues position on bonuses and NMCs. So I am not sure we can bank on that too much. FA also tends to mean you are getting guys who will be expensive and have ages that are not great for our window.

That really leaves trades as our most likely Avenue for fixing the D in a timeframe I would feel good about which will cost assets. Finding those diamonds (for a lack of a better term) would curb our asset expenditure and help us find players that fit our horizon. That’s why I specifically called attention to that aspect of our pro scouting. Unfortunately, our pro scouts and GM really haven’t proven able to do that like a Vegas for example. Maybe they can, but we just haven’t seen it yet IMO.

 

[Reality Czech]

The way they played during that "wacky Covid shortened season" is exactly what we've been seeing for the past 2 years. That makes 3 of the past 4 years we've been an intensely mediocre team and the outlier, that 21-22 team, had a top 3 shooting % in the modern era while the underlyings looked basically exactly the same as the other 3. It was no more real than last year's Seattle team that won under the same circumstances and beat Colorado in the playoffs.

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.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I sort of disagree. I think as an organization, they decided to focus on forwards in earlier rounds and defensemen in mid-rounds. I'd be willing to bet that forwards in those areas are better value than defensemen and defensemen in the mid rounds are better value than forwards. It's a hunch, but I'd suspect it leans that way, even if just slightly. Even if it's just forwards in late first develop quicker than defensemen in the same spot, so the big club will benefit more quickly.

I do think our scouts draft mid-round defensemen pretty well. Edmundson, Parayko, Walman, Mikkola, Dunn, and then we get to the Tucker/Kessel where we might have to wait and see, and even more recent guys like Buchinger, Burns, Fischer, where we certainly have to wait and see.

I think while we viewed ourselves as a contender level team, our issue was more on developing those mid-round defensemen. It's either sink or swim on an important pair without much room for mistakes, or banished to the 3rd pair, and never trusted in a role again.

This model also had the benefit of leaning on Petro as the #1, so for years, we had the luxury of prioritizing forward selections.

 

[Blueston]

I think @BlueDream and @bleedblue1223 covered a lot of what I would have communicated. I don’t think our scouts are bad. They are ok to a bit above average and I think their strengths skew more toward forward evaluation. Defensively is less a strength and I think they are below average at goalie evaluations.

@Blueston notes some good trades we have made. I fully agree they were good. But as BlueDream and BleedBlue pointed out, these guys were relatively known quantities and don’t really fit the diamond in the rough type trade I think we will have to be able to make if we are not doing to bottom out.

Why I believe this is because of the state of our defense both on the NHL roster and in the system. While I think highly of our amateur scouts, I don’t think they are particularly strong at finding defensemen. Forwards and goalies? Yeah they are good maybe close to great. Even if they can find D, they really needed to do it yesterday or the day before. D take time to develop, much more so then forwards and we have a stable of forwards going or near ready to go. I don’t want to waste their window waiting on D. That puts us behind the 8 ball.

I already stated my thinking on free agency with regards to the Blues position on bonuses and NMCs. So I am not sure we can bank on that too much. FA also tends to mean you are getting guys who will be expensive and have ages that are not great for our window.

That really leaves trades as our most likely Avenue for fixing the D in a timeframe I would feel good about which will cost assets. Finding those diamonds (for a lack of a better term) would curb our asset expenditure and help us find players that fit our horizon. That’s why I specifically called attention to that aspect of our pro scouting. Unfortunately, our pro scouts and GM really haven’t proven able to do that like a Vegas for example. Maybe they can, but we just haven’t seen it yet IMO.

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.

 

[Frenzy31]

I think @BlueDream and @bleedblue1223 covered a lot of what I would have communicated. I don’t think our scouts are bad. They are ok to a bit above average and I think their strengths skew more toward forward evaluation. Defensively is less a strength and I think they are below average at goalie evaluations.

@Blueston notes some good trades we have made. I fully agree they were good. But as BlueDream and BleedBlue pointed out, these guys were relatively known quantities and don’t really fit the diamond in the rough type trade I think we will have to be able to make if we are not doing to bottom out.

Why I believe this is because of the state of our defense both on the NHL roster and in the system. While I think highly of our amateur scouts, I don’t think they are particularly strong at finding defensemen. Forwards and goalies? Yeah they are good maybe close to great. Even if they can find D, they really needed to do it yesterday or the day before. D take time to develop, much more so then forwards and we have a stable of forwards going or near ready to go. I don’t want to waste their window waiting on D. That puts us behind the 8 ball.

I already stated my thinking on free agency with regards to the Blues position on bonuses and NMCs. So I am not sure we can bank on that too much. FA also tends to mean you are getting guys who will be expensive and have ages that are not great for our window.

That really leaves trades as our most likely Avenue for fixing the D in a timeframe I would feel good about which will cost assets. Finding those diamonds (for a lack of a better term) would curb our asset expenditure and help us find players that fit our horizon. That’s why I specifically called attention to that aspect of our pro scouting. Unfortunately, our pro scouts and GM really haven’t proven able to do that like a Vegas for example. Maybe they can, but we just haven’t seen it yet IMO.

I don't think we have this conversation if we had pulled off the Krug trade this past year...... But oh well..

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think bigger issue (and you touch on it) is our failure to develop defensemen, particularly at nhl level. I blam 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.

Yeah, we'd still have a defensive core that is lacking a #1, but we'd have a better defensive core. Part of it is the coaching decision to give Parayko the hardest minutes possible. In a sense, this means the other pairs can be more easily sheltered, but it also means the internal options that could've paired nicely with him, Walman or Mikkola never had a fair shot. They could never develop in that deployment. Mikkola had some nice stretches next to Parayko and more rough stretches, and I don't think Walman ever played next to him, not much anyway.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think bigger issue (and you touch on it) is our failure to develop defensemen, particularly at nhl level. I blam 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.

This is a good criticism. Is Edmundson on that list? I think one factor was that those guys were coming up when the Blues defense was one of the best in the league, arguably THE best when you factor in Binnington’s puck movement. Minutes for a young guy were hard to come by. It was easy to never get the opportunity to grow into a larger role when you’re overshadowed by Pietro, Bouw and Parayko.

But the situation has changed and we should see plenty of opportunity for a young guy now. Frankly, that’s kind of what ‘tanking’ is, playing a young developing guy and allowing the points to suffer in service to long term value.

 

[Celtic Note]

I think bigger issue (and you touch on it) is our failure to develop defensemen, particularly at nhl level. I blam 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 am not sure I agree that it is a bigger issue, because we still need that #1. But I wholeheartedly agree that the development has been an issue. We would have less pieces we would need if we had developed better.

 

[Blueston]

This is a good criticism. Is Edmundson on that list? I think one factor was that those guys were coming up when the Blues defense was one of the best in the league, arguably THE best when you factor in Binnington’s puck movement. Minutes for a young guy were hard to come by. It was easy to never get the opportunity to grow into a larger role when you’re overshadowed by Pietro, Bouw and Parayko.

But the situation has changed and we should see plenty of opportunity for a young guy now. Frankly, that’s kind of what ‘tanking’ is, playing a young developing guy and allowing the points to suffer in service to long term value.

i think eddy and parayko were handled fairly well by previous coaching staffs. eddy issue was always one of maturity/commitment i think more than development.