Who would you like to see as the next GM and next coach of the Blues?

[Ted Hoffman]

It's no Ted Hampson-like performance, though.

 

[MissouriMook]

I'm sort of warming up to the idea of hiring a new GM under Armstrong. Keeping DA as the President of Hockey Operations allows us to keep him in a role where he can add value (i.e. - continue to let him do the things he is actually good at) and we don't have to eat the last 3 years of his contract. Bringing in a new GM that has a good perspective of how to build a team that can win in the current league environment and has an eye for evaluating pro talent, yet is new to the role and won't cost a ton of money for the first 2-3 years is something I could support. That person can learn the ropes from Armstrong and build their relationships with other GMs but wouldn't (necessarily) be tethered to the same roster construction issues that DA has been over the years.

Or maybe I should just shut up and start day drinking. That might work out better.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'm sort of warming up to the idea of hiring a new GM under Armstrong. Keeping DA as the President of Hockey Operations allows us to keep him in a role where he can add value (i.e. - continue to let him do the things he is actually good at) and we don't have to eat the last 3 years of his contract.

OK, I'll ask since you mention it. What is he actually good at that justifies keeping him on the payroll for 3 more years as President of Hockey Operations?

Let me pose that question another way: DA's been the President of Hockey Operations since about when John Davidson left the organization. Is the Blues franchise in a better position now than it was when DA assumed that higher position?

 

[MissouriMook]

OK, I'll ask since you mention it. What is he actually good at that justifies keeping him on the payroll for 3 more years as President of Hockey Operations?

Let me pose that question another way: DA's been the President of Hockey Operations since about when John Davidson left the organization. Is the Blues franchise in a better position now than it was when DA assumed that higher position?

I think he has been far more good than bad when it comes to contracts, especially with our high end talent. He catches a lot of heat, and deservedly so, for some of the deals for role players and middling talent, and he has certainly botched the goaltending situation. The deals for Tarasenko and Pietrangelo were great value and term. And while I think he has relied too heavily on his mediocre pro scouting staff, most of which appear to be “his guys”, I think he has very good instincts when it comes to buying versus selling.

Ultimately, I would like to see someone with limited experience but a good hockey mind come in and build a better pro scouting staff, build a team with an identity that is more in tune with what succeeds in the NHL today, and fix the goaltending situation. But I think Army brings enough value that I would be fine if he were kept on to get that new GM off to a good start. The other side of this is that I would not want to see someone green come in and be expected to sink or swim.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think he has been far more good than bad when it comes to contracts, especially with our high end talent. He catches a lot of heat, and deservedly so, for some of the deals for role players and middling talent, and he has certainly botched the goaltending situation. The deals for Tarasenko and Pietrangelo were great value and term. And while I think he has relied too heavily on his mediocre pro scouting staff, most of which appear to be “his guys”, I think he has very good instincts when it comes to buying versus selling.

Ultimately, I would like to see someone with limited experience but a good hockey mind come in and build a better pro scouting staff, build a team with an identity that is more in tune with what succeeds in the NHL today, and fix the goaltending situation. But I think Army brings enough value that I would be fine if he were kept on to get that new GM off to a good start. The other side of this is that I would not want to see someone green come in and be expected to sink or swim.

Isn't that really more of an argument for keeping him as GM, though? Your GM is the guy who's going to negotiate and sign contracts and put together the NHL roster and acquire assets for the reserve list that presumably get used to help the team in the future. The VP of Hockey Ops isn't doing any of that. Your VPoHO is going to set the long-term vision for the franchise, build the scouting staff, find guys who can develop players, work on affiliation agreements, make sure all the farm teams are pulling in the same direction, etc. That's where I'm struggling to figure out why you'd keep him in that role where he's clearly sucked, but then take him out of the GM's chair where you're largely arguing he'd be fine if only he could solve the goaltending riddle.

Larry Pleau was [and still is] savaged for failing to do a number of the things DA has failed to do - namely, solve the ever-present question of who should be in net. And Pleau had the misfortune of trying to build a Cup-contending roster while Detroit was in its prime, Colorado was in its prime, and Dallas had already assembled key pieces for a Cup run. If Pleau is a pariah because of goaltending and lack of playoff success, I'm trying to understand why DA gets a free pass for the same things, especially when he arguably started from a much stronger position and his teams went on to do even less in the postseason.

 

[MissouriMook]

I just feel like having DA around to teach the new GM the things he’s good at while the new guy takes a fresh approach to the things DA has struggled with might be a net plus. I can certainly see where someone would disagree.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

So ... then why have a new GM at all? Why not just continue with the status quo? It just seems like a change for the sake of change. It's like "well, I don't really want to do anything, but I guess I gotta do something, so ... what the hell, let's do this anyway."

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but I think there's a legitimate question to be asked because I feel like the justification you're giving is "well, I think we need a change at general manager because all the good our current GM has done - and he's done a whole lot of good - is negated by his inability to address the goaltending situation, so let's bring someone else in who has a fresh approach and can get taught by our current GM - and as long as he does everything the same and fixes the problem in net, then everything will be OK. But other than that, I want the new guy to get taught by the current GM, and somehow the new guy will figure out what's to be listened to and what's to be ignored ... and the current GM will know what to teach that's been good and won't teach any of the bad stuff. And then the new guy will do his own thing and the current GM won't be second-guessing and there won't be any friction and everything will be kumbaya."

And I am really not attacking you, I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint and how it makes sense to keep around the guy who's taken the franchise to the current state it's in.

 

[Bluesguru]

I just feel like having DA around to teach the new GM the things he’s good at while the new guy takes a fresh approach to the things DA has struggled with might be a net plus. I can certainly see where someone would disagree.

Count me out as being a supporter for DA. The team has basically crashed and burned 3 straight years now after reaching the Final 4. That is horrible management. I've always said he wasn't good with roster construction and ever since he's had to make decisions its been chaos. The sooner he's gone the better.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

If you’re looking for the answer to “who’s next” for our coaching job, there’s one pretty good guideline to follow: the 6 degrees of Daniel Tkazcuk.

Coach Tkazcuk has:

• Coached with Drew Bannister in Owen Sound (2012-2015)
• Coached with Mike Van Ryn in Kitchener (2015-2016)
• Played for JJ Daigneault briefly in Hartford (2009-2010)
• Played in Charlotte while Glen Wesley was a development coach there (2009-2010)
• Played with director of player personnel Rob DiMaio in Milano, Italy (2004-2005)

So, Dan is a kingmaker for the Blues pretty much. Who else is he affiliated with then?

• Played for Benoit Groulx in Rochester (2009-2010)
• Played with Sheldon Keefe in Barrie (1998-1999)
• Played with Rocky Thompson in Saint John (1999-2000)
• Played with Dallas Eakins in Calgary (2000-2001)
• Played with Dave Lowry in Calgary (2000-2001)

Pick a name, one of them will be our next coach. The other Tkazcuk commands it.

 

[MissouriMook]

If you’re looking for the answer to “who’s next” for our coaching job, there’s one pretty good guideline to follow: the 6 degrees of Daniel Tkazcuk.

Coach Tkazcuk has:

• Coached with Drew Bannister in Owen Sound (2012-2015)
• Coached with Mike Van Ryn in Kitchener (2015-2016)
• Played for JJ Daigneault briefly in Hartford (2009-2010)
• Played in Charlotte while Glen Wesley was a development coach there (2009-2010)
• Played with director of player personnel Rob DiMaio in Milano, Italy (2004-2005)

So, Dan is a kingmaker for the Blues pretty much. Who else is he affiliated with then?

• Played for Benoit Groulx in Rochester (2009-2010)
• Played with Sheldon Keefe in Barrie (1998-1999)
• Played with Rocky Thompson in Saint John (1999-2000)
• Played with Dallas Eakins in Calgary (2000-2001)
• Played with Dave Lowry in Calgary (2000-2001)

Pick a name, one of them will be our next coach. The other Tkazcuk commands it.

No connection to Quenneville?

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

No connection to Quenneville?

He played in Worcester when Q and Kitchen were still with the Blues, but never played a game for the big team. He would have certainly gone to training camp with them though.

Other fun connection: he played for Leon Draisaitl’s dad in Germany for a season

 

[Girth Butcher]

I'm sort of warming up to the idea of hiring a new GM under Armstrong. Keeping DA as the President of Hockey Operations allows us to keep him in a role where he can add value (i.e. - continue to let him do the things he is actually good at) and we don't have to eat the last 3 years of his contract. Bringing in a new GM that has a good perspective of how to build a team that can win in the current league environment and has an eye for evaluating pro talent, yet is new to the role and won't cost a ton of money for the first 2-3 years is something I could support. That person can learn the ropes from Armstrong and build their relationships with other GMs but wouldn't (necessarily) be tethered to the same roster construction issues that DA has been over the years.

Or maybe I should just shut up and start day drinking. That might work out better.

I really like this idea. Go after a Mark Hunter/Scott Mellanby type guy who has 100% roster control, but keep Army for mentoring/managing minor league business development. Great post MoMo!

 

[GoldenSeal]

Army has taken this team as far as he can. If you don't get someone else, he will dwindle the assets down, wash, rinse, repeat until you have to do a rebuild.

Army is amazing with rebuilds but once the roster hits a certain ceiling he begins to shuffle down and in the process slowly disassembles what's been built. We're at that point with netminding. There was zero reason to move on from Halak/Elliott unless it was to start Bishop.

Without a HC this is the right time to bring in a new GM and they can start fresh without baggage in the front office. I think this is Stillman's plan and why the team doesn't have an HC yet. I think Army's job right now is in jeopardy.

We need a GM who can take us to the next step and Army ain't him.

 

[thedustman]

is nolan available?

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

is nolan available?

.... Ted Nolan?

I’m sure he’d be thrilled to get a phone call. I’d struggle to think of a more unlikely name though, or one that I’d be less happy with.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

There was zero reason to move on from Halak/Elliott unless it was to start Bishop.

And at the point Bishop started showing he was ready to start in the NHL, there was zero reason to play him with Elliott playing outstanding, Halak doing pretty well, and the Blues fighting for position in the Western Conference and a shot at home ice advantage throughout the playoffs.

DA has made a bunch of decisions that I'd fault him for as part of making the argument that he needs to go. The entire Bishop episode doesn't even enter into my mind as one of them.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

And at the point Bishop started showing he was ready to start in the NHL, there was zero reason to play him with Elliott playing outstanding, Halak doing pretty well, and the Blues fighting for position in the Western Conference and a shot at home ice advantage throughout the playoffs.

DA has made a bunch of decisions that I'd fault him for as part of making the argument that he needs to go. The entire Bishop episode doesn't even enter into my mind as one of them.

Bish was 24, and a fine prospect that we probably shouldn’t have shipped out, but a 2nd was a good return for him.

Halak had been with the team for 2 years by that point, and would go on to win the Jennings with Elliott the year that Bishop was traded. We also had golden boy Jake Allen, who had beaten out Bish for the starting job in Peoria the year prior. Binnington was an OHL champion and Memorial Cup Best Goalie award winner the season prior, and was rolling along.

All of that looks like reason enough to trade Bishop until you remember that Bish led the AHL in shutouts the year he was traded, and was an all-star. Reading back over what the deal was, Bish would have become a UFA in summer 2012 unless he played 17+ games of 30+ more minutes per game. With Elliott at 1.68GAA and .937sv%, that wasn’t going to happen. Moose parlayed his two-way contract into a two-year extension, and Bish’s fate was sealed.

In retrospect, it would have been a better move in the long-term to ship out Halak and run Ells and Bish, but Ells hadn’t shown himself to be reliable yet, and Halak was still the clear starter. But that is truly a hindsight is 20/20 thing to say.

So, yeah, you’re right. In retrospect it doesn’t look all that great, but it was pretty much the only move to make at the time. Had Vannelli turned into anything, or if we had picked someone else who turned into something, I don’t think it would stick into people’s craw as bad as it does

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Exactly. There's a lot of "if only we had known" in there, and at the time we didn't and guessing about it would have been exactly that. Plus, who knows what's different if we trade Halak and keep Bishop. Playing "what if" leads to a whole lot of conclusions, none of which are provable but everyone wants to pretend would have gone better.

 

[ort]

Guys, if we had a time machine, we could make the Blues the best team in the history of the NHL. It's true.