What would you do if you were GM?

[Xerloris]

At the draft, what do you think our 1st + Buch would do for moving us up to a point where we could get a Dman we would be happy with?

 

[Brian39]

I didn't vote because I don't think that this summer is the time to choose between buying and selling. I'd 100% be looking to do both. I don't think there is a single thing that I'd feel a 'need' to accomplish.

Excluding 'making good picks at the draft,' my first goal would be acquire a top 15 draft pick at the draft. Depending on how the lottery shakes out, I see a number of non-playoff teams who might be willing to part with their 1st round pick. Calgary, Buffalo, New Jersey, Detroit, Ottawa, and Arizona all strike me as teams that might be willing to prioritize next year over their 1st rounder if they don't win the lottery and see their favorite targets picked before their turn.

Goal #2 would be looking to acquire later 1sts, 2nds, or future draft picks at the draft. Depending on when these types of deals get done, potentially flipping multiple picks for a top 15 pick.

My success in accomplishing goals #1 and #2 would largely dictate the direction I take the rest of the summer. If you trade Buch, Leddy, and Faulk at the draft for a nice haul of picks, then the rest of the summer looks a hell of a lot different than if no one is offering appropriate value for those guys and all we do at the draft is make selections with the picks we already have.

But I would be trying to sell at the draft and going from there.

 

[MissouriMook]

…

Excluding 'making good picks at the draft,' my first goal would be acquire a top 15 draft pick at the draft. Depending on how the lottery shakes out, I see a number of non-playoff teams who might be willing to part with their 1st round pick. Calgary, Buffalo, New Jersey, Detroit, Ottawa, and Arizona all strike me as teams that might be willing to prioritize next year over their 1st rounder if they don't win the lottery and see their favorite targets picked before their turn.

…

For the right player, for example a young defenseman on a track of ascendency, we should absolutely be in that group. Our own first rounder should absolutely be on the table in the right deal, independent of whether or not we look to acquire picks as a seller.

 

[Brian39]

For the right player, for example a young defenseman on a track of ascendency, we should absolutely be in that group. Our own first rounder should absolutely be on the table in the right deal, independent of whether or not we look to acquire picks as a seller.

Agreed.

But the group of teams I was referring to was definitely more along the thought process of looking to trade their 1st rounder for a good roster player for 2024/25 than it was looking to trade the pick for a guy with long-term upside. Essentially, I was thinking about teams that might be willing to give up a non-late 1st rounder in a Buch deal.

Realistically, every team should be in the group willing to trade their 1st. I just think that the likelihood of a team offering a young D man on the track of ascendancy for the #16 pick is much lower than a team offering an early-mid 1st for a known NHL quantity. Trading long-term futures for short-medium term futures is a tougher deal to make than trading long-term futures for veteran NHL talent.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

Agreed.

But the group I was referring to was definitely more along the though process of looking to trade their 1st rounder for a good roster player for 2024/25 than it was looking to trade the pick for a guy with long-term upside. Essentially, I was thinking about teams that might be willing to give up a non-late 1st rounder in a Buch deal.

I agree with you on this one. I don’t think some things can be fixed without Tonya Harding as a bench coach.

 

[GoldenSeal]

As Blues GM, a rebuild is ridiculous and absolutely out of the question.

I'm retooling. We have proven vets like Binny, Thomas, Parayko, folks working on mastering their craft like Kyrou, kids coming up ready to roll like Neighbors and Bolduc and Kessel is coming along amazingly. That's my core.

Extra assets would go to a bonafide 1LD, which would be my top priority and I'm not drafting that. That one addition would change the blueline and give me time to work out what to do. Folks like Krug become point machines when they got the right people around them and if that can be leveraged, there might be good reason to keep him.

Without that one piece, though, this teams window won't open.

 

[Mike Liut]

At the draft, what do you think our 1st + Buch would do for moving us up to a point where we could get a Dman we would be happy with?

I just don’t see a team that’s drafting in the top 10-14 wanting Buch who’s 1 year from UFA. The same reason we don’t

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

I just don’t see a team that’s drafting in the top 10-14 wanting Buch who’s 1 year from UFA. The same reason we don’t

If Pittsburgh ends up getting the East WC2, maybe Detroit or Washington looks into getting Buch. Detroit to replace an older vet like Perron with a younger one in Buch, or Washington looking to add to make that last push with Ovi. Though both would likely need some sort of picture as to what Buch would want on an extension.

That said, I don't think those are overly likely to happen, but I do think they're plausible outcomes.

 

[Cotton McKnight]

Trade Krug for nothing in return.

Send him (Krug) to the SJS (or any team on his NTC that will take him for a bag of pucks)!

Sadly, trade Buchnevich for picks or a decent prospect (hopefully a good D-man).

Trade Binnington to a cup competitive team that needs a goalie (this will leave a bitter taste in my mouth). Find a decent backup that can play 20-40 games behind Hofer. Let's see what Hofer can do in the #1 role.

Let Perunovich walk or play in the AHL.

Let the kids play together and the older vets play support roles on lines 3-4 or Defense lines 2-3.

The rest of the players will help us stay in a better pick position for a year or two.

Rebuild it! Watch some gelling of the youngsters while avoiding the acknowledgement of the goal count against.

 

[ort]

As Blues GM, a rebuild is ridiculous and absolutely out of the question.

I'm retooling. We have proven vets like Binny, Thomas, Parayko, folks working on mastering their craft like Kyrou, kids coming up ready to roll like Neighbors and Bolduc and Kessel is coming along amazingly. That's my core.

Extra assets would go to a bonafide 1LD, which would be my top priority and I'm not drafting that. That one addition would change the blueline and give me time to work out what to do. Folks like Krug become point machines when they got the right people around them and if that can be leveraged, there might be good reason to keep him.

Without that one piece, though, this teams window won't open.

They could do this, sure... but we'd be looking at 3-4 more years of what we currently have followed by a rebuild. Why not rip off the band-aid?

This roster as constructed (plus smart but realistic tweaks) isn't doing anything but landing outside of drafting a top 10 pick but also most likely not making the playoffs. It's a death spiral of mediocrity. You can get trapped in that vortex for a decade if you aren't careful.

 

[Brian39]

Here are my (probably fluid) tiers of availability regarding the assets within the organization.

Please note, these are not tiers ranking potential returns or the overall value of each player/asset. These are groupings of my eagerness to move them and the type of goals I'd be looking to accomplish in any deal involving them. I have attempted to list roster players in order of value within each tier, but I didn't try that hard at this aspect of the post.

Tier 1: Functionally untouchable. No one is offering a package that would make it worth parting with the asset. Obviously any player is moveable if the Avs suddenly want to trade us Makar or the Oilers want to give us McDavid. But realistically, there is no trade offer that would be worth considering.

Thomas

Tier 2: Almost untouchable. It is at least plausible that a team could offer a package worth considering, but I'm only moving an asset from this tier if at least one asset coming back is a tangible piece that improves the organization in all of the short, medium, and long terms. A high end prospect in his D+1-3 season (depending on position) or a 21-24 year old good young NHL player with substantial team control. Someone my pro scouting staff is in love with. And then I might need more to sweeten the pot. I'm not calling anyone about these assets, but I'll listen if you call me and bring them up.

Parayko, Dvorsky, and any 1st round pick in the year 2025 and beyond.

Tier 3: Really hard to get and only available for specific returns. I'm not moving any of these assets just for the sake of getting a 'valuable' package. I'm not swapping any of the players for pure futures assets and would only be interested if I'm getting back a player who is a specific target of our pro scouting staff. However, I wouldn't need the same sweetener(s) to get a deal done that I'd need to be talked into the tier 2 assets and might add value on our end if the target is right.

Kyrou, Neighbours, Hofer, Bolduc, Kessell, Snuggy, Lindstein, Stenberg, any other quality prospect who hasn't made the NHL yet, and the 2024 1st.

Tier 4: Truly on the table for good value. I don't feel a need to move these guys in the next 11 months, but if you offer me a package with sufficient value, I'd do it. I'd take a package of pure uncertain futures instead of a specific target, but it still needs to be a package where I feel the value received is on par with the value I'm giving up. I believe all these guys carry tangible value to the growth of our organization if they remain here.

Binner, Leddy, Faulk, Saad, Torpo, Sunny, and Hayes.

Tier 5: Pavel Buchnevich. He either needs to be extended or moved in the next 11 months. No in between. He is the only asset in our organization who I feel that way about, so he gets his own tier. If I can get it done at the draft for a package I like? Great. If not, keep talking extension and keep exploring the trade market until the 2025 trade deadline when something has to get finalized.

Buch

Tier 6: Move them for cap space. If I can shed this contract from the organization, I'm happy to do it. The long-term benefit of getting out of the contract outweighs short term loss of talent/presence.

Schenn and Krug

Tier 7: Included as a sweetener in a deal to accomplish another goal:

Perunovich, Tucker, Alexandrov, Walker, non-1st round draft picks.

 

[taylord22]

Here are my (probably fluid) tiers of availability regarding the assets within the organization.

Please note, these are not tiers ranking potential returns or the overall value of each player/asset. These are groupings of my eagerness to move them and the type of goals I'd be looking to accomplish in any deal involving them. I have attempted to list roster players in order of value within each tier, but I didn't try that hard at this aspect of the post.

Tier 1: Functionally untouchable. No one is offering a package that would make it worth parting with the asset. Obviously any player is moveable if the Avs suddenly want to trade us Makar or the Oilers want to give us McDavid. But realistically, there is no trade offer that would be worth considering.

Thomas

Tier 2: Almost untouchable. It is at least plausible that a team could offer a package worth considering, but I'm only moving an asset from this tier if at least one asset coming back is a tangible piece that improves the organization in all of the short, medium, and long terms. A high end prospect in his D+1-3 season (depending on position) or a 21-24 year old good young NHL player with substantial team control. Someone my pro scouting staff is in love with. And then I need more to sweeten the pot. I'm not calling anyone about these assets, but I'll listen if you call me and bring them up.

Parayko, Dvorsky, and any 1st round pick in the year 2025 and beyond.

Tier 3: Really hard to get and only available for specific returns. I'm not moving any of these assets just for the sake of getting a 'valuable' package. I'm not swapping any of the players for pure futures assets and would only be interested if I'm getting back a player who is a specific target of our pro scouting staff. However, I wouldn't need the same sweetener(s) to get a deal done that I'd need to be talked into the tier 2 assets and might add value on our end if the target is right.

Kyrou, Neighbours, Hofer, Bolduc, Kessell, Dvorsky, Lindstein, Stenberg, any other quality prospect who hasn't made the NHL yet, and the 2024 1st.

Tier 4: Truly on the table for good value. I don't feel a need to move these guys in the next 11 months, but if you offer me a package with sufficient value, I'd do it. I'd take a package of pure uncertain futures instead of a specific target, but it still needs to be a package where I feel the value received is on par with the value I'm giving up. I believe all these guys carry tangible value to the growth of our organization if they remain here.

Binner, Leddy, Faulk, Saad, Hayes, Sunny, and Torpo

Tier 5: Pavel Buchnevich. He either needs to be extended or moved in the next 11 months. No in between. He is the only asset in our organization who I feel that way about, so he gets his own tier. If I can get it done at the draft for a package I like? Great. If not, keep talking extension and keep exploring the trade market until the 2025 trade deadline when something has to get finalized.

Buch

Tier 6: Move them for cap space. If I can shed this contract from the organization, I'm happy to do it. The long-term benefit of getting out of the contract outweighs short term loss of talent/presence.

Krug and Schenn

Tier 7: Included as a sweetener in a deal to accomplish another goal:

Perunovich, Tucker, Alexandrov, Walker, non-1st round draft picks.

I agree with these rankings. The only spots I might quibble is around Torpo and Binner moving up a tier, but I understand why you have them where you do.

And I also might've put Schenn in his own category...absolutely is a bad contract, but it's one we're never going to get rid of unless he asks.

 

[Majorityof1]

Here are my (probably fluid) tiers of availability regarding the assets within the organization.

Please note, these are not tiers ranking potential returns or the overall value of each player/asset. These are groupings of my eagerness to move them and the type of goals I'd be looking to accomplish in any deal involving them. I have attempted to list roster players in order of value within each tier, but I didn't try that hard at this aspect of the post.

Tier 1: Functionally untouchable. No one is offering a package that would make it worth parting with the asset. Obviously any player is moveable if the Avs suddenly want to trade us Makar or the Oilers want to give us McDavid. But realistically, there is no trade offer that would be worth considering.

Thomas

Tier 2: Almost untouchable. It is at least plausible that a team could offer a package worth considering, but I'm only moving an asset from this tier if at least one asset coming back is a tangible piece that improves the organization in all of the short, medium, and long terms. A high end prospect in his D+1-3 season (depending on position) or a 21-24 year old good young NHL player with substantial team control. Someone my pro scouting staff is in love with. And then I might need more to sweeten the pot. I'm not calling anyone about these assets, but I'll listen if you call me and bring them up.

Parayko, Dvorsky, and any 1st round pick in the year 2025 and beyond.

Tier 3: Really hard to get and only available for specific returns. I'm not moving any of these assets just for the sake of getting a 'valuable' package. I'm not swapping any of the players for pure futures assets and would only be interested if I'm getting back a player who is a specific target of our pro scouting staff. However, I wouldn't need the same sweetener(s) to get a deal done that I'd need to be talked into the tier 2 assets and might add value on our end if the target is right.

Kyrou, Neighbours, Hofer, Bolduc, Kessell, Dvorsky, Lindstein, Stenberg, any other quality prospect who hasn't made the NHL yet, and the 2024 1st.

Tier 4: Truly on the table for good value. I don't feel a need to move these guys in the next 11 months, but if you offer me a package with sufficient value, I'd do it. I'd take a package of pure uncertain futures instead of a specific target, but it still needs to be a package where I feel the value received is on par with the value I'm giving up. I believe all these guys carry tangible value to the growth of our organization if they remain here.

Binner, Leddy, Faulk, Saad, Torpo, Sunny, and Hayes.

Tier 5: Pavel Buchnevich. He either needs to be extended or moved in the next 11 months. No in between. He is the only asset in our organization who I feel that way about, so he gets his own tier. If I can get it done at the draft for a package I like? Great. If not, keep talking extension and keep exploring the trade market until the 2025 trade deadline when something has to get finalized.

Buch

Tier 6: Move them for cap space. If I can shed this contract from the organization, I'm happy to do it. The long-term benefit of getting out of the contract outweighs short term loss of talent/presence.

Schenn and Krug

Tier 7: Included as a sweetener in a deal to accomplish another goal:

Perunovich, Tucker, Alexandrov, Walker, non-1st round draft picks.

I also mostly agree.

Schenn is tougher to move as captain. I'd bump him up if management feels he has the room. His long term downside is trumped by the short term hit to morale of losing yet another C.

Dvorsky is on here twice. I'd see why as you could make an argument either way. I'd go Tier 2. I'd move our 1sts down to tier 3. I'll trade this year's first for a good shot at a young top pair D, and I'd do the same with other years with top 5 protection for the right player.

I'd move Faulk down a peg with the caveat that only applies if I can't move Krug. I don't want both on the roster next year. If you can't move Krug, move Faulk. If we move Krug, Faulk moves up where I'd move him only for good value.

 

[Brian39]

I also mostly agree.

Schenn is tougher to move as captain. I'd bump him up if management feels he has the room. His long term downside is trumped by the short term hit to morale of losing yet another C.

I wasn't a fan of naming him captain and I think that any morale loss would be more than offset by the vote of confidence in giving Thomas the C and eliminating the $26M in cap commitments (over 4 more years). But I agree that moving Krug is preferable. I'm not paying to move Schenn, but I'd give him away if a team doesn't view him as a negative asset with that contract.

Dvorsky is on here twice. I'd see why as you could make an argument either way.

Whoops. The Dvorsky in tier 3 was supposed to be Snuggy. I very much intended Dvorsky to be in tier 2. I edited my post to fix.

I'd move our 1sts down to tier 3. I'll trade this year's first for a good shot at a young top pair D, and I'd do the same with other years with top 5 protection for the right player.

I do have our 2024 1st in tier 3, but I have future firsts in tier 2 because I absolutely don't like the notion of trading what could become a top 5 pick. Trading the 2025 1st (top 5 protected) still creates a scenario where we pick top 5 in 2025 and then have to give a team an unprotected 1st in 2026 (the Gavin McKenna draft). Trading even a top 5 (or 10) protected 1st in 2025 and beyond means that a rebuild is fully off the table even if your plans go wrong because you could eventually wind up giving a team an unprotected 1st. The NHL has never approved a trade that includes indefinite top 5 protection and even though I think this team can execute a retool without years of being in the basement, there is no guarantee of that.

I'd move Faulk down a peg with the caveat that only applies if I can't move Krug. I don't want both on the roster next year. If you can't move Krug, move Faulk. If we move Krug, Faulk moves up where I'd move him only for good value.

We have the benefit of more time than we do with Buch (so he doesn't fit in that tier) and I'm not giving him away for nothing (so he doesn't fit in tier 6 either). I think he was battling injury this year and will be better next year. I don't think we need his cap space in 2024/25 and I don't think the roster improves by simply removing him. His contract should be easier to move next summer to when his trade protection gets cut in half.

I'd rather keep him than give him away for nothing, even if we can't move Krug.

 

[Celtic Note]

I wasn't a fan of naming him captain and I think that any morale loss would be more than offset by the vote of confidence in giving Thomas the C and eliminating the $26M in cap commitments (over 4 more years). But I agree that moving Krug is preferable. I'm not paying to move Schenn, but I'd give him away if a team doesn't view him as a negative asset with that contract.



Whoops. The Dvorsky in tier 3 was supposed to be Snuggy. I very much intended Dvorsky to be in tier 2. I edited my post to fix.



I do have our 2024 1st in tier 3, but I have future firsts in tier 2 because I absolutely don't like the notion of trading what could become a top 5 pick. Trading the 2025 1st (top 5 protected) still creates a scenario where we pick top 5 in 2025 and then have to give a team an unprotected 1st in 2026 (the Gavin McKenna draft). Trading even a top 5 (or 10) protected 1st in 2025 and beyond means that a rebuild is fully off the table even if your plans go wrong because you could eventually wind up giving a team an unprotected 1st. The NHL has never approved a trade that includes indefinite top 5 protection and even though I think this team can execute a retool without years of being in the basement, there is no guarantee of that.



We have the benefit of more time than we do with Buch (so he doesn't fit in that tier) and I'm not giving him away for nothing (so he doesn't fit in tier 6 either). I think he was battling injury this year and will be better next year. I don't think we need his cap space in 2024/25 and I don't think the roster improves by simply removing him. His contract should be easier to move next summer to when his trade protection gets cut in half.

I'd rather keep him than give him away for nothing, even if we can't move Krug.

I was going to ask about the draft pick years in your tiers but figured this was the reason. Thanks for the clarification.

I too generally agree with your tier with only minor quibbles (depending on definitions and nuances for tiers 2&3).

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Here are my (probably fluid) tiers of availability regarding the assets within the organization.

Please note, these are not tiers ranking potential returns or the overall value of each player/asset. These are groupings of my eagerness to move them and the type of goals I'd be looking to accomplish in any deal involving them. I have attempted to list roster players in order of value within each tier, but I didn't try that hard at this aspect of the post.

Tier 1: Functionally untouchable. No one is offering a package that would make it worth parting with the asset. Obviously any player is moveable if the Avs suddenly want to trade us Makar or the Oilers want to give us McDavid. But realistically, there is no trade offer that would be worth considering.

Thomas

Tier 2: Almost untouchable. It is at least plausible that a team could offer a package worth considering, but I'm only moving an asset from this tier if at least one asset coming back is a tangible piece that improves the organization in all of the short, medium, and long terms. A high end prospect in his D+1-3 season (depending on position) or a 21-24 year old good young NHL player with substantial team control. Someone my pro scouting staff is in love with. And then I might need more to sweeten the pot. I'm not calling anyone about these assets, but I'll listen if you call me and bring them up.

Parayko, Dvorsky, and any 1st round pick in the year 2025 and beyond.

Tier 3: Really hard to get and only available for specific returns. I'm not moving any of these assets just for the sake of getting a 'valuable' package. I'm not swapping any of the players for pure futures assets and would only be interested if I'm getting back a player who is a specific target of our pro scouting staff. However, I wouldn't need the same sweetener(s) to get a deal done that I'd need to be talked into the tier 2 assets and might add value on our end if the target is right.

Kyrou, Neighbours, Hofer, Bolduc, Kessell, Snuggy, Lindstein, Stenberg, any other quality prospect who hasn't made the NHL yet, and the 2024 1st.

Tier 4: Truly on the table for good value. I don't feel a need to move these guys in the next 11 months, but if you offer me a package with sufficient value, I'd do it. I'd take a package of pure uncertain futures instead of a specific target, but it still needs to be a package where I feel the value received is on par with the value I'm giving up. I believe all these guys carry tangible value to the growth of our organization if they remain here.

Binner, Leddy, Faulk, Saad, Torpo, Sunny, and Hayes.

Tier 5: Pavel Buchnevich. He either needs to be extended or moved in the next 11 months. No in between. He is the only asset in our organization who I feel that way about, so he gets his own tier. If I can get it done at the draft for a package I like? Great. If not, keep talking extension and keep exploring the trade market until the 2025 trade deadline when something has to get finalized.

Buch

Tier 6: Move them for cap space. If I can shed this contract from the organization, I'm happy to do it. The long-term benefit of getting out of the contract outweighs short term loss of talent/presence.

Schenn and Krug

Tier 7: Included as a sweetener in a deal to accomplish another goal:

Perunovich, Tucker, Alexandrov, Walker, non-1st round draft picks.

Nice summary. I'd underscore that Buchnevich has 11 months. And re-signing him is not a disaster, but the less likely path. If the doesn't move until the trade deadline next year, its fine. We don't know quite what the market is, but it was weaker than expected this past deadline.

 

[LogosBlue]

So, if i were GM, that would mean DA was gone and that's a good start in my book.

Let's start with the easy stuff. Do not make an offer to pending UFA's with the possible exception of Scandella. I would offer him a 1 year 1.5 million extension.

Hire Galant to lead this team for the foreseeable future. This is a must. Fire Ott and find a replacement. Someone who is a PP / PK specialist.

Sign Alexandrov to a one year, two way contract @ league minimum.

Find someone to take a chance on Perunovich and getting anything at all would be ideal. 6th maybe.

Next, I would find a suitor for Justin Faulk or Torey Krug. Either or. It would have to be somewhere they agrees to go and there would need to be equity coming back the other way. Preferably a mid-tier player and a pick such as Foegele + 3rd (2025). Not saying that's who we should be targeting, just a mid tier player on a playoff team. I'd take a higher pick and a lesser player preferably.

At the same time, I'd be working the phone with Buffalo to see if we could snag a young defenseman for Kyrou. Powers or the like. Plus, there are lots of rumors that Buf. is looking to hire Berube. That would be comedy gold right there. lol.

Kevin Hayes needs to go. Literally give me anything to pull the trigger and send him packing.

Player to keep and build around: Binnington, Parayko, Thomas, Neighbours, Toropchenko.

Do not trade any top level prospect or picks. (Hofer, Bolduc, Snuggy, Dvorsky, Lindstein, Stenberg, Dean), You could convince me to trade one of these guys if the return were young, talented and filled a gap somewhere.

They rest are expendable assets to gain value and fill needs.

 

[simon IC]

Here are my (probably fluid) tiers of availability regarding the assets within the organization.

Please note, these are not tiers ranking potential returns or the overall value of each player/asset. These are groupings of my eagerness to move them and the type of goals I'd be looking to accomplish in any deal involving them. I have attempted to list roster players in order of value within each tier, but I didn't try that hard at this aspect of the post.

Tier 1: Functionally untouchable. No one is offering a package that would make it worth parting with the asset. Obviously any player is moveable if the Avs suddenly want to trade us Makar or the Oilers want to give us McDavid. But realistically, there is no trade offer that would be worth considering.

Thomas

Tier 2: Almost untouchable. It is at least plausible that a team could offer a package worth considering, but I'm only moving an asset from this tier if at least one asset coming back is a tangible piece that improves the organization in all of the short, medium, and long terms. A high end prospect in his D+1-3 season (depending on position) or a 21-24 year old good young NHL player with substantial team control. Someone my pro scouting staff is in love with. And then I might need more to sweeten the pot. I'm not calling anyone about these assets, but I'll listen if you call me and bring them up.

Parayko, Dvorsky, and any 1st round pick in the year 2025 and beyond.

Tier 3: Really hard to get and only available for specific returns. I'm not moving any of these assets just for the sake of getting a 'valuable' package. I'm not swapping any of the players for pure futures assets and would only be interested if I'm getting back a player who is a specific target of our pro scouting staff. However, I wouldn't need the same sweetener(s) to get a deal done that I'd need to be talked into the tier 2 assets and might add value on our end if the target is right.

Kyrou, Neighbours, Hofer, Bolduc, Kessell, Snuggy, Lindstein, Stenberg, any other quality prospect who hasn't made the NHL yet, and the 2024 1st.

Tier 4: Truly on the table for good value. I don't feel a need to move these guys in the next 11 months, but if you offer me a package with sufficient value, I'd do it. I'd take a package of pure uncertain futures instead of a specific target, but it still needs to be a package where I feel the value received is on par with the value I'm giving up. I believe all these guys carry tangible value to the growth of our organization if they remain here.

Binner, Leddy, Faulk, Saad, Torpo, Sunny, and Hayes.

Tier 5: Pavel Buchnevich. He either needs to be extended or moved in the next 11 months. No in between. He is the only asset in our organization who I feel that way about, so he gets his own tier. If I can get it done at the draft for a package I like? Great. If not, keep talking extension and keep exploring the trade market until the 2025 trade deadline when something has to get finalized.

Buch

Tier 6: Move them for cap space. If I can shed this contract from the organization, I'm happy to do it. The long-term benefit of getting out of the contract outweighs short term loss of talent/presence.

Schenn and Krug

Tier 7: Included as a sweetener in a deal to accomplish another goal:

Perunovich, Tucker, Alexandrov, Walker, non-1st round draft picks.

Well done. Agreed on every point.

 

[PocketNines]

It's impossible to dispute the idea of getting value back in an exchange of assets, but there is also another team identity tier which is more of an art form. The supposed advantage you have when you have an old wizened GM is the wisdom to be able to look at two players like Kyrou and Neighbours, and have an internal valuation separate from a market evaluation.

For me that says if I have the opportunity to ship Kyrou out, and I also have the opportunity to ship Neighbours out, I have to know which type of player is going to contribute most to a winning culture that I want to build, and which may be expendable from that standpoint.

I think that defensive systems keeping forwards to the perimeter in the attacking zone have come a long way, there are too many strong teams blocking shots and preventing high danger chances that you either have to have skating gamebreakers who can defeat even the best laid plans, or you have to have a determined effort to make net front chaos and be able to have the hands around the net to produce greasy goals. Hockey for all its changes does retain its essentials.

He leaves a late impression of finishing because his numbers are ticking up at the end of the season but for months Kyrou was not able to finish his chances. Defensively he improved from one of the worst I have ever seen to merely bad. Teams know how to play him, get bodies on him and the play will often die with him. He would be so easy to game plan in the playoffs. As GM it's my job to see into the future and avoid foreseeable situations. With Neighbours, I see a player who will have a letter on his chest and be a glue piece. I see him figuring out how to just win the game. There is a bright red flashing sign "KEEPER" above this player's head for me.

That identity Neighbours brings can be a franchise touchstone – you try to identify players that play with a similar alignment toward just winning, and you assemble them together. When I am bringing targets back in trade, I want them to line up with the identity I am building. It's an inchoate quality, not easily subject to advanced stats. My personal judgment is that I value Neighbors for the chances of the Blues winning in the future really highly and so if I trade him then the player I get back had better be an identity player too or else I'm subtracting something special.

 

[Brian39]

After the World Juniors we were talking about David Carle and I was hopeful that perhaps he wouldn't get an NHL offer this summer and could potentially be convinced to take the Jon Cooper path of making an AHL stop after huge success at the junior/amateur level. With the number of coaching vacancies that have opened up this year (with likely a couple more coming) and him winning another National Championship, that is obviously not going to happen. He will be getting at least one NHL offer and likely multiple.

I'm ready to make him an NHL offer.

DU's defensive structure was a thing of beauty in the Frozen 4 and while they are a very talented roster, they were out-talented by BU and BC. He also obviously has a ton of experience working with guys in their young 20s. Effectively implementing defensive structure and effectively helping young players grow their games are the two biggest strengths that I'm looking for in a new coach for 2024/25 and beyond. And given my expectations for next season, I'd be fine if his lack of pro experience leads to some rough patches in 2024/25.

I think he is a great fit for us, but more importantly I think we are a good fit for him. I'm not sold that any of Buffalo, Ottawa, New Jersey, or Minnesota will be willing to hire a guy with no NHL experience. Those fanbases are getting restless and will all be pretty pissed if they miss the playoffs again next year due to coaching inexperience. Same thing with Detroit if they make a change or any team who fires a coach due to playoff disappointment.

I could see a couple basement teams making offers, but I think our roster is better suited to a young guy trying to make the jump. Our roster certainly has flaws, but the veteran group is certainly better overall than the teams that are 15-44 points behind us in the standings. Guys like Thomas and Parayko are good enough (and experienced enough) for a new coach to really lean on. We have a very strong goalie tandem to keep games close when we botch things. Schenn, Saad, Leddy, Hayes and Faulk can all act as locker room vets who can also contribute on the ice. We have more guardrails to prevent the team from going off a cliff than the basement teams we'd likely be competing against.

If I were him and thinking about making the jump, I'd certainly be trying my hardest to avoid being the coach of a team that people are penciling to lose 50 games. One benefit of not going in the tank completely is that you are more appealing to coaching candidates.

And it probably doesn't hurt that Ryan Miller (our AGM, not the retired goalie) got his law degree from DU and started his career in hockey working for a Denver based agency. It also wouldn't hurt that we were the team who gave Montgomery his 2nd chance in the NHL (Carle was an assistant under Montgomery at DU for a few years).

The more I think about it, the more I want the Blues to make an aggressive pitch to make Carle our head coach next year. He ticks a ton of boxes, we have the freedom to 'take a risk' behind the bench next year, he has a hell of a winning pedigree, and we have ties to his professional network. I think we are great fits for each other and I'm not sure what he has left to accomplish in the NCAA.

 

[BlueDream]

After the World Juniors we were talking about David Carle and I was hopeful that perhaps he wouldn't get an NHL offer this summer and could potentially be convinced to take the Jon Cooper path of making an AHL stop after huge success at the junior/amateur level. With the number of coaching vacancies that have opened up this year (with likely a couple more coming) and him winning another National Championship, that is obviously not going to happen. He will be getting at least one NHL offer and likely multiple.

I'm ready to make him an NHL offer.

DU's defensive structure was a thing of beauty in the Frozen 4 and while they are a very talented roster, they were out-talented by BU and BC. He also obviously has a ton of experience working with guys in their young 20s. Effectively implementing defensive structure and effectively helping young players grow their games are the two biggest strengths that I'm looking for in a new coach for 2024/25 and beyond. And given my expectations for next season, I'd be fine if his lack of pro experience leads to some rough patches in 2024/25.

I think he is a great fit for us, but more importantly I think we are a good fit for him. I'm not sold that any of Buffalo, Ottawa, New Jersey, or Minnesota will be willing to hire a guy with no NHL experience. Those fanbases are getting restless and will all be pretty pissed if they miss the playoffs again next year due to coaching inexperience. Same thing with Detroit if they make a change or any team who fires a coach due to playoff disappointment.

I could see a couple basement teams making offers, but I think our roster is better suited to a young guy trying to make the jump. Our roster certainly has flaws, but the veteran group is certainly better overall than the teams that are 15-44 points behind us in the standings. Guys like Thomas and Parayko are good enough (and experienced enough) for a new coach to really lean on. We have a very strong goalie tandem to keep games close when we botch things. Schenn, Saad, Leddy, Hayes and Faulk can all act as locker room vets who can also contribute on the ice. We have more guardrails to prevent the team from going off a cliff than the basement teams we'd likely be competing against.

If I were him and thinking about making the jump, I'd certainly be trying my hardest to avoid being the coach of a team that people are penciling to lose 50 games. One benefit of not going in the tank completely is that you are more appealing to coaching candidates.

And it probably doesn't hurt that Ryan Miller (our AGM, not the retired goalie) got his law degree from DU and started his career in hockey working for a Denver based agency. It also wouldn't hurt that we were the team who gave Montgomery his 2nd chance in the NHL (Carle was an assistant under Montgomery at DU for a few years).

The more I think about it, the more I want the Blues to make an aggressive pitch to make Carle our head coach next year. He ticks a ton of boxes, we have the freedom to 'take a risk' behind the bench next year, he has a hell of a winning pedigree, and we have ties to his professional network. I think we are great fits for each other and I'm not sure what he has left to accomplish in the NCAA.

I agree. I think now is the time that we have to take a chance and swing for a home run, because Carle could be one.

Even if he doesn’t work out, I don’t really see any serious downfall to it. If he sucks at the pro level and we have to fire him in 3 years, so be it. Given the shelf life of most coaches, that might be all we get out of Bannister or anyone else anyways.

The only thing we don’t want with a new coach is for them to stunt the development of our young players. Obviously with Carle doing extremely well with college kids, that isn’t a concern with him.

So I look at it like this. Either:

A.) Carle ends up being a stud and we just found the next elite coach in the league

OR

B.) He’s nothing special and we don’t win a lot, but in the meantime our young players still developed well and we added a few more strong draft picks along the way. If we have to fire him, we can bring in the best veteran coach available to come in and and take the reins as this team begins to contend again.

Kinda looks like a win-win scenario IMO.

 

[Majorityof1]

I agree. I think now is the time that we have to take a chance and swing for a home run, because Carle could be one.

Even if he doesn’t work out, I don’t really see any serious downfall to it. If he sucks at the pro level and we have to fire him in 3 years, so be it. Given the shelf life of most coaches, that might be all we get out of Bannister or anyone else anyways.

The only thing we don’t want with a new coach is for them to stunt the development of our young players. Obviously with Carle doing extremely well with college kids, that isn’t a concern with him.

So I look at it like this. Either:

A.) Carle ends up being a stud and we just found the next elite coach in the league

OR

B.) He’s nothing special and we don’t win a lot, but in the meantime our young players still developed well and we added a few more strong draft picks along the way. If we have to fire him, we can bring in the best veteran coach available to come in and and take the reins as this team begins to contend again.

Kinda looks like a win-win scenario IMO.

I don't follow college hockey on a macro level that closely. I only really watch specific prosoects. There is a difference between recruiting/coaching kids and developing kids. Do his college players grow under him? Or is he just recruiting talented kids and creating good x's and o's schemes without them really developing a ton as players?

 

[Brian39]

I don't follow college hockey on a macro level that closely. I only really watch specific prosoects. There is a difference between recruiting/coaching kids and developing kids. Do his college players grow under him? Or is he just recruiting talented kids and creating good x's and o's schemes without them really developing a ton as players?

Not perfect metrics, but the draft pedigree of his players suggest that they have developed and improved rather than him simply recruiting already great players.

Z Buium is a high pedigree draft-eligible freshman who is a lock to get selected in the top half of the 1st round. But besides him, they don't have any other 1st round picks on the roster this year. Their leading scorer is a 20 year old junior who was drafted in the 7th round in 2022. Their 3rd leading scorer is a 22 year old junior who was drafted in the 7th round in 2019. Their 4th and 5th leading scorers were 2nd round picks and their 6th leading scorer went undrafted.

To compare, the team he just defeated in the championship had three guys who were drafted in the top 10 in 2022 and 2023, plus another 1st round pick and a good chunk of other drafted players. 7 guys from BC played for the US at the World Juniors while DU sent 1. BC's goalie was Team USA's starter at the World Juniors and a 3rd round NHL draft pick.

DU's 2022 National Championship team didn't have a single 1st round draft pick on it.

Now, there is a much more complicated discussion about the difference between getting the most out of guys who play multiple years in your NCAA program and actually developing them for (or at) the next level. He might be great at the former and not good at the latter. Perhaps he is simply getting the most out of lesser talent and fostering a good enough environment to keep older players that might be ready to jump to the AHL. Maybe he is only improving the skills to excel in the NCAA and not the ones they need to translate their game to the pros. I doubt that, but it is a complex topic and could be true.

But he definitely isn't simply recruiting the best talent. The Boston/Michigan area schools are beating DU to the high end talent year after year. He is for sure getting more out of less and I'd wager that he is genuinely improving them.

Edit:

Jack Devine got picked in the 7th round after his freshman season at DU and Wheeler now has him ranked as Florida's #5 prospect.

Massimo Rizzo got picked in the 7th round a year before going to DU and Wheeler now has him ranked as Florida's #5 prospect (in a good prospect pool).

Bobby Brink was picked 34th overall before going to DU and saw steady improvement in his 3 years there. Wheeler now has him as Philly's #3 prospect and he had a pretty decent age 22 rookie NHL season this year.

There is definitely proof of concept that he is actually developing guys. He doesn't much track record of his alums turning into legit NHL players, but he also doesn't recruit guys with high draft pedigree. I believe that Z Buium will be his first ever player to get drafted in the 1st round and he probably only landed him because his older brother was already on the team.

Long story short, I don't watch nearly enough college hockey to say that he's some great skills developer. However, he is unquestionably effective at communicating with guys in their early 20s, teaching guys that age effective defensive hockey, and getting buy in to that defensive hockey.

 

[Blueston]

After the World Juniors we were talking about David Carle and I was hopeful that perhaps he wouldn't get an NHL offer this summer and could potentially be convinced to take the Jon Cooper path of making an AHL stop after huge success at the junior/amateur level. With the number of coaching vacancies that have opened up this year (with likely a couple more coming) and him winning another National Championship, that is obviously not going to happen. He will be getting at least one NHL offer and likely multiple.

I'm ready to make him an NHL offer.

DU's defensive structure was a thing of beauty in the Frozen 4 and while they are a very talented roster, they were out-talented by BU and BC. He also obviously has a ton of experience working with guys in their young 20s. Effectively implementing defensive structure and effectively helping young players grow their games are the two biggest strengths that I'm looking for in a new coach for 2024/25 and beyond. And given my expectations for next season, I'd be fine if his lack of pro experience leads to some rough patches in 2024/25.

I think he is a great fit for us, but more importantly I think we are a good fit for him. I'm not sold that any of Buffalo, Ottawa, New Jersey, or Minnesota will be willing to hire a guy with no NHL experience. Those fanbases are getting restless and will all be pretty pissed if they miss the playoffs again next year due to coaching inexperience. Same thing with Detroit if they make a change or any team who fires a coach due to playoff disappointment.

I could see a couple basement teams making offers, but I think our roster is better suited to a young guy trying to make the jump. Our roster certainly has flaws, but the veteran group is certainly better overall than the teams that are 15-44 points behind us in the standings. Guys like Thomas and Parayko are good enough (and experienced enough) for a new coach to really lean on. We have a very strong goalie tandem to keep games close when we botch things. Schenn, Saad, Leddy, Hayes and Faulk can all act as locker room vets who can also contribute on the ice. We have more guardrails to prevent the team from going off a cliff than the basement teams we'd likely be competing against.

If I were him and thinking about making the jump, I'd certainly be trying my hardest to avoid being the coach of a team that people are penciling to lose 50 games. One benefit of not going in the tank completely is that you are more appealing to coaching candidates.

And it probably doesn't hurt that Ryan Miller (our AGM, not the retired goalie) got his law degree from DU and started his career in hockey working for a Denver based agency. It also wouldn't hurt that we were the team who gave Montgomery his 2nd chance in the NHL (Carle was an assistant under Montgomery at DU for a few years).

The more I think about it, the more I want the Blues to make an aggressive pitch to make Carle our head coach next year. He ticks a ton of boxes, we have the freedom to 'take a risk' behind the bench next year, he has a hell of a winning pedigree, and we have ties to his professional network. I think we are great fits for each other and I'm not sure what he has left to accomplish in the NCAA.

well said. i'm glad you have come around on him. he is a star, and we should hire him tomorrow morning.

 

[Blueston]

Not perfect metrics, but the draft pedigree of his players suggest that they have developed and improved rather than him simply recruiting already great players.

Z Buium is a high pedigree draft-eligible freshman who is a lock to get selected in the top half of the 1st round. But besides him, they don't have any other 1st round picks on the roster this year. Their leading scorer is a 20 year old junior who was drafted in the 7th round in 2022. Their 3rd leading scorer is a 22 year old junior who was drafted in the 7th round in 2019. Their 4th and 5th leading scorers were 2nd round picks and their 6th leading scorer went undrafted.

To compare, the team he just defeated in the championship had three guys who were drafted in the top 10 in 2022 and 2023, plus another 1st round pick and a good chunk of other drafted players. 7 guys from BC played for the US at the World Juniors while DU sent 1. BC's goalie was Team USA's starter at the World Juniors and a 3rd round NHL draft pick.

DU's 2022 National Championship team didn't have a single 1st round draft pick on it.

Now, there is a much more complicated discussion about the difference between getting the most out of guys who play multiple years in your NCAA program and actually developing them for (or at) the next level. He might be great at the former and not good at the latter. Perhaps he is simply getting the most out of lesser talent and fostering a good enough environment to keep older players that might be ready to jump to the AHL. Maybe he is only improving the skills to excel in the NCAA and not the ones they need to translate their game to the pros. I doubt that, but it is a complex topic and could be true.

But he definitely isn't simply recruiting the best talent. The Boston/Michigan area schools are beating DU to the high end talent year after year. He is for sure getting more out of less and I'd wager that he is genuinely improving them.

Edit:

Jack Devine got picked in the 7th round after his freshman season at DU and Wheeler now has him ranked as Florida's #5 prospect.

Massimo Rizzo got picked in the 7th round a year before going to DU and Wheeler now has him ranked as Florida's #5 prospect (in a good prospect pool).

Bobby Brink was picked 34th overall before going to DU and saw steady improvement in his 3 years there. Wheeler now has him as Philly's #3 prospect and he had a pretty decent age 22 rookie NHL season this year.

There is definitely proof of concept that he is actually developing guys. He doesn't much track record of his alums turning into legit NHL players, but he also doesn't recruit guys with high draft pedigree. I believe that Z Buium will be his first ever player to get drafted in the 1st round and he probably only landed him because his older brother was already on the team.

Long story short, I don't watch nearly enough college hockey to say that he's some great skills developer. However, he is unquestionably effective at communicating with guys in their early 20s, teaching guys that age effective defensive hockey, and getting buy in to that defensive hockey.

to take it even further, zbuium was considered late 1st round pick at beginning of season. maybe carle saw his talents much more clearly than the ntdp guys did, maybe he helped him improve. either way, he is now potential top 5 pick after year under carle and zbuium gives him a lot of credit for his development this year.

as to his brother and recruiting, there was a funny anecdote in athletic article couple weeks ago. zeev tagged along on big brother's recruiting visit to du. by the end of the visit he apparently was ready to commit and couldn't understand why shai wasn't. shai eventually did and zeev followed, but seems likely that he would have leaned du anyway (he noted that he wanted top program but also for it to be easy for his parents to attend games, and san diego to denver is much easier than san diego- boston or ann arbor).