Army: Keep or Fire?

Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or anything hockey. (Formerly the Blues News Forum)

Moderator: LGB Mods

Army?

Keep
17
68%
Fire
8
32%
 
Total votes: 25

flyingnote38
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:25 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by flyingnote38 »

cprice12 wrote:I'd bet money that Armstrong will make moves to improve the offense in the offseason. He has to.

no point in further hashing the other stuff from your post; just a case of difference of opinion.

as for Army fixing the offense.

I thought he understood that offense was the big need last offseason. He made a strong run at fixing that without subtracting much from the core. He offered a ton of money (that I didn't think we had available to spend) to Lecavaler and then Filpula. When those didn't work out, he signed Roy as plan 'C'. In order to make things work cap wise, Perron had to go with Tarasenko sliding into his roster spot. Beyond that, he merely added the usual 'suspects' of veteran fillers with Morrow being the best of this year's bunch.

Then.......I think he got fooled by a career half season by Steen into thinking offense was no longer a weak spot.

The Roy signing clearly underwhelmed (look no further than the "#RoyWatch on STLG: "#Roywatch was started when fellow Brit, Grant Sales, was disappointed in the Roy pickup and, in a show of displeasure, predicted 36 points for him. Putting his money where his mouth is, Grant pledged £1 for every point over 36 scored by Roy in the regular season. Charities were nominated on Facebook and a number of Blues fans decided to join in with this – some agreed with Grant’s prediction for Derek Roy and others disagreed." Roy put up 37 points. Embarassed STLGers decided to donate a $ for every point Roy scored rather than merely send $1).

So if Roy was the "solution" and he wasn't working out, to my thinking that still left us with a hole at second line center, especially with Berglund having ananti-Steen year and the rest of our centers not named Backes being much more suited to third and fourth line roles than scoring line roles. The big move on offense in season was to deal Stewart and replace him with Ott who I compared to Lapierre and basically feel that I owe Lapierre and apology for that.

So. Hopefully Armstrong doesn't get distracted or lose focus and does something to fix the offense. I think he will. I think he better. And I think if we are having this conversation again a year from now......... well you get the idea.
2016-7 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2017-8 sponsor of Tage Thompson
2018-9 sponsor of Ryan O'Reilly
2019-20 sponsor of old time hockey
2020-21 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2021-22 sponsor of Pavel Buchnevich
2022-23 sponsor of Brayden Schenn
2023-24 sponsor of Justin Faulk

cardsfan04
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:43 am

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by cardsfan04 »

Misc. Blues wrote:
cardsfan04 wrote:I'm really curious to see if we spend to the cap again. I think it's supposed to be $71.1 mil up from $64.3 mil(?). Something like that, don't have it in front of me.

If I'm right on the cap numbers and we do end up spending to the cap again (don't know what to expect there, probably spend like $65 mil?), I don't really mind going after Miller even if he wants a ton. I'm more concerned with his salary with respect to the cap than I am with respect to his value. If we can sign him for $7 mil without it restricting our ability to go after a top-line scorer, I don't mind giving him that, even if he's only worth $5 mil or whatever.
The Blues will be down to about 50-52M after they re-sign Tarasenko and Sobotka (edit: and Schwartz). If they spend to 65M they can get scoring and a goalie...

Oh and everyone bitching about Miller's salary at 6.25M has to remember the Blue only payed 5M and Sabres picked up 1.5M of his money. Yes I know 5M and picks Blah Blah Blah. Hindsight is 20-20 move on and deal with what is and not bitch about what isn't...
Thanks for the numbers. I thought it was something along those lines. To me, which goalie we go after depends solely on how much we're willing to spend. If we're willing to spend $65 mil, it doesn't make sense to go after Elliott for savings. I only like Elliott over Miller if it allows us to go after a scorer. Miller + Scorer > Elliott + Scorer.
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin
2017-2018 Official LGB Sponsor of Jake Allen

flyingnote38
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:25 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by flyingnote38 »

Misc blues wrote

<<<<<<Miller was good in game 1 after period 1 and was great in game 3 but was Just ok in game 5
Gm1 GAA 3 SV% .929 3OT W
Gm2 GAA 3 SV% .893 OT W
Gm3 GAA 1 SV% .958 SO L
Gm4 GAA 4 SV% .882 OT L
Gm5 GAA 3 SV% .900 OT L
Gm6 GAA 5 SV% .815 Smoked L>>>>>>>>

I don't know how much stock to place on save percentages for individual games. But if we think there's value to do so, we could conceive of a stat analogous to the "quality start" concept in baseball and assess whether your goalie's performance was good enough to have enabled a reasonable chance of winning.

Over a 5 year period 2009 to 2013, across all goalies and all shots in even strength situations, we come up with a composite average save percentage of .920 (I can get you a link to this if you need it but can't do it right now as I'm iPadding). So significantly above that average level = good! significantly below that level = bad. (The exclamation point was my iPad's auto-correct function's idea so I left it LOL)

Looking at the above, Miller was an asset in 2 games and a liability in 4, which is how the series went, although the wins and losses did not align exactly with his "quality starts"

Using the 3 goal standard as our goalie measuring stick i.e. If 3 goals should be enough to win, we credit the goalie for giving up 2 or less in regulation and dock him for 3 or more. Again Miller gets 2 positives, neither of which we won, but the remaining 4 would have required a minimum of 4 to win.

The Sharp goal in game three could have led to the skonk rule being invoked cause the Blues just quit as a team after that, so I won't say we needed 6 to win that game, but expecting the offense, particularly this offense, to score 4 goals in order to win doesn't sound like elite goaltending to me.
2016-7 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2017-8 sponsor of Tage Thompson
2018-9 sponsor of Ryan O'Reilly
2019-20 sponsor of old time hockey
2020-21 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2021-22 sponsor of Pavel Buchnevich
2022-23 sponsor of Brayden Schenn
2023-24 sponsor of Justin Faulk

User avatar
ComradeT
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:08 am

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by ComradeT »

I think Army is doing the right things so far. Even with Miller not living up to the expectation, that trade was about two things: ridding the Blues of a player that frustrated everyone to no end in Stewart and solving an equally frustrating goaltending situation by bringing in a goalie with a solid resume to replace the very inconsistent Halak. That Elliott wasn't given a consideration as a number 1 with Allen as a back up may just as well be down to Elliott's not showing enough or not asking loudly enough to be that guy.

The Perron trade may have been a salary dump but it also removed a potential distraction in a locker room as Perron was definitely at odds with Hitch. We have to keep in mind that finances may be limited so while we did give up one of our best scorers, Army was probably happy to dump his paycheck while expecting Oshie, Steen, Schwartz and Tarasenko to pick up the slack. And to some extent they did, maybe not individually but by committee. Blues were not goal-shy this season. The playoffs showed that while the Blues have Tarasenko on the rise, teams like Chicago usually have more than one guy like that (usually more than two), and this is an issue Army has yet to resolve. It's likely that a suitable deal just wasn't there this season and he didn't want to give up too much to go after the scorer as the Blues have done so many times in the past. The big goalie trade was done, and another big trade was probably too tough to pull. I am looking forward to this off-season to see what he does. I am not going to rehash all of the possibilities, and the need is evident to all of us. I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.

So keep.
2018 - 2019 Official sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2017 - 2018 Official sponsor of Joel "Top Shelf" Edmundson
2016 - 2017 Official sponsor of Nail "THE YAK" Yakupov

glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 11410
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by glen a richter »

ComradeT wrote:I think Army is doing the right things so far. Even with Miller not living up to the expectation, that trade was about two things: ridding the Blues of a player that frustrated everyone to no end in Stewart and solving an equally frustrating goaltending situation by bringing in a goalie with a solid resume to replace the very inconsistent Halak. That Elliott wasn't given a consideration as a number 1 with Allen as a back up may just as well be down to Elliott's not showing enough or not asking loudly enough to be that guy.

The Perron trade may have been a salary dump but it also removed a potential distraction in a locker room as Perron was definitely at odds with Hitch. We have to keep in mind that finances may be limited so while we did give up one of our best scorers, Army was probably happy to dump his paycheck while expecting Oshie, Steen, Schwartz and Tarasenko to pick up the slack. And to some extent they did, maybe not individually but by committee. Blues were not goal-shy this season. The playoffs showed that while the Blues have Tarasenko on the rise, teams like Chicago usually have more than one guy like that (usually more than two), and this is an issue Army has yet to resolve. It's likely that a suitable deal just wasn't there this season and he didn't want to give up too much to go after the scorer as the Blues have done so many times in the past. The big goalie trade was done, and another big trade was probably too tough to pull. I am looking forward to this off-season to see what he does. I am not going to rehash all of the possibilities, and the need is evident to all of us. I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.

So keep.
In an interview with Tarasenko, he was talking about joking around at team functions and how he made a knock-knock joke that directly ripped Perron. Seems the team didn't like him in the locker room as he was a crybaby whiner.
Sponsor of Joel "Future" HOFer 2023-2024

User avatar
Oaklandblue
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by Oaklandblue »

glen a richter wrote:
ComradeT wrote:I think Army is doing the right things so far. Even with Miller not living up to the expectation, that trade was about two things: ridding the Blues of a player that frustrated everyone to no end in Stewart and solving an equally frustrating goaltending situation by bringing in a goalie with a solid resume to replace the very inconsistent Halak. That Elliott wasn't given a consideration as a number 1 with Allen as a back up may just as well be down to Elliott's not showing enough or not asking loudly enough to be that guy.

The Perron trade may have been a salary dump but it also removed a potential distraction in a locker room as Perron was definitely at odds with Hitch. We have to keep in mind that finances may be limited so while we did give up one of our best scorers, Army was probably happy to dump his paycheck while expecting Oshie, Steen, Schwartz and Tarasenko to pick up the slack. And to some extent they did, maybe not individually but by committee. Blues were not goal-shy this season. The playoffs showed that while the Blues have Tarasenko on the rise, teams like Chicago usually have more than one guy like that (usually more than two), and this is an issue Army has yet to resolve. It's likely that a suitable deal just wasn't there this season and he didn't want to give up too much to go after the scorer as the Blues have done so many times in the past. The big goalie trade was done, and another big trade was probably too tough to pull. I am looking forward to this off-season to see what he does. I am not going to rehash all of the possibilities, and the need is evident to all of us. I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.


So keep.
In an interview with Tarasenko, he was talking about joking around at team functions and how he made a knock-knock joke that directly ripped Perron. Seems the team didn't like him in the locker room as he was a crybaby whiner.
Perron is having a blast off year..in the East. This matters to my point. Why?

Operating on the cheap isn't going to get us anywhere. We've gotten this far being on the cheap by developing the talent we have through the AHL and through minor signings and have hit the ceiling. It's time to invest real money into the future of the franchise or go home. I don't want to hear what money they don't have or may not have, they only way at this point they're going to make money on this situation is by investing it/spending it and sign real front line players.

We are in possibly the most competative conference in sports. We can't just spend to budget, we have to build a real contender. If we were in the East, we'd make the ECF or Finals. Beyond a very small handful, they don't have the kind of teams that the Ducks, Kings, Hawks, etc. evident by the BJs making the playoffs for the second time in history right after realignment.

To make the finals in this Conference we have to be the best, or we have to go home. Anything less is going to end up in mediocrity. With the history the franchise has, the only way we're going to sign those real game changers for us is with cash.
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!

glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 11410
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by glen a richter »

Oaklandblue wrote:
glen a richter wrote:
ComradeT wrote:I think Army is doing the right things so far. Even with Miller not living up to the expectation, that trade was about two things: ridding the Blues of a player that frustrated everyone to no end in Stewart and solving an equally frustrating goaltending situation by bringing in a goalie with a solid resume to replace the very inconsistent Halak. That Elliott wasn't given a consideration as a number 1 with Allen as a back up may just as well be down to Elliott's not showing enough or not asking loudly enough to be that guy.

The Perron trade may have been a salary dump but it also removed a potential distraction in a locker room as Perron was definitely at odds with Hitch. We have to keep in mind that finances may be limited so while we did give up one of our best scorers, Army was probably happy to dump his paycheck while expecting Oshie, Steen, Schwartz and Tarasenko to pick up the slack. And to some extent they did, maybe not individually but by committee. Blues were not goal-shy this season. The playoffs showed that while the Blues have Tarasenko on the rise, teams like Chicago usually have more than one guy like that (usually more than two), and this is an issue Army has yet to resolve. It's likely that a suitable deal just wasn't there this season and he didn't want to give up too much to go after the scorer as the Blues have done so many times in the past. The big goalie trade was done, and another big trade was probably too tough to pull. I am looking forward to this off-season to see what he does. I am not going to rehash all of the possibilities, and the need is evident to all of us. I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.


So keep.
In an interview with Tarasenko, he was talking about joking around at team functions and how he made a knock-knock joke that directly ripped Perron. Seems the team didn't like him in the locker room as he was a crybaby whiner.
Perron is having a blast off year..in the East. This matters to my point. Why?

Operating on the cheap isn't going to get us anywhere. We've gotten this far being on the cheap by developing the talent we have through the AHL and through minor signings and have hit the ceiling. It's time to invest real money into the future of the franchise or go home. I don't want to hear what money they don't have or may not have, they only way at this point they're going to make money on this situation is by investing it/spending it and sign real front line players.

We are in possibly the most competative conference in sports. We can't just spend to budget, we have to build a real contender. If we were in the East, we'd make the ECF or Finals. Beyond a very small handful, they don't have the kind of teams that the Ducks, Kings, Hawks, etc. evident by the BJs making the playoffs for the second time in history right after realignment.

To make the finals in this Conference we have to be the best, or we have to go home. Anything less is going to end up in mediocrity. With the history the franchise has, the only way we're going to sign those real game changers for us is with cash.
Since when is Edmonton in the east?
Sponsor of Joel "Future" HOFer 2023-2024

User avatar
Oaklandblue
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by Oaklandblue »

glen a richter wrote:
Oaklandblue wrote:
glen a richter wrote:
ComradeT wrote:I think Army is doing the right things so far. Even with Miller not living up to the expectation, that trade was about two things: ridding the Blues of a player that frustrated everyone to no end in Stewart and solving an equally frustrating goaltending situation by bringing in a goalie with a solid resume to replace the very inconsistent Halak. That Elliott wasn't given a consideration as a number 1 with Allen as a back up may just as well be down to Elliott's not showing enough or not asking loudly enough to be that guy.

The Perron trade may have been a salary dump but it also removed a potential distraction in a locker room as Perron was definitely at odds with Hitch. We have to keep in mind that finances may be limited so while we did give up one of our best scorers, Army was probably happy to dump his paycheck while expecting Oshie, Steen, Schwartz and Tarasenko to pick up the slack. And to some extent they did, maybe not individually but by committee. Blues were not goal-shy this season. The playoffs showed that while the Blues have Tarasenko on the rise, teams like Chicago usually have more than one guy like that (usually more than two), and this is an issue Army has yet to resolve. It's likely that a suitable deal just wasn't there this season and he didn't want to give up too much to go after the scorer as the Blues have done so many times in the past. The big goalie trade was done, and another big trade was probably too tough to pull. I am looking forward to this off-season to see what he does. I am not going to rehash all of the possibilities, and the need is evident to all of us. I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.


So keep.
In an interview with Tarasenko, he was talking about joking around at team functions and how he made a knock-knock joke that directly ripped Perron. Seems the team didn't like him in the locker room as he was a crybaby whiner.
Perron is having a blast off year..in the East. This matters to my point. Why?

Operating on the cheap isn't going to get us anywhere. We've gotten this far being on the cheap by developing the talent we have through the AHL and through minor signings and have hit the ceiling. It's time to invest real money into the future of the franchise or go home. I don't want to hear what money they don't have or may not have, they only way at this point they're going to make money on this situation is by investing it/spending it and sign real front line players.

We are in possibly the most competative conference in sports. We can't just spend to budget, we have to build a real contender. If we were in the East, we'd make the ECF or Finals. Beyond a very small handful, they don't have the kind of teams that the Ducks, Kings, Hawks, etc. evident by the BJs making the playoffs for the second time in history right after realignment.

To make the finals in this Conference we have to be the best, or we have to go home. Anything less is going to end up in mediocrity. With the history the franchise has, the only way we're going to sign those real game changers for us is with cash.
Since when is Edmonton in the east?
It's not, it's in Canada, dammit!

LOL okay, I suck. Now that that's out of the way, how about your thoughts about the rest of my post? :)
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!

User avatar
ViPeRx007
LGB Booster - Yellow
LGB Booster - Yellow
Posts: 9765
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Billings, MT

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by ViPeRx007 »

It's easy to assemble what you'd consider to be a Stanley Cup Championship winning team when you can have mulligans on past trades that didn't quite work out or make fictitious trades that never happened. That's what some of you are doing. Reality doesn't allow for that though. Army made, and will continue to make, decisions that are and have been, in his estimation, the best for the club. The question you have to ask is if you think he's capable of putting a champion together on paper. At the end of the day, that's really all he can do. The rest comes down to the players and coaches themselves playing up to and even exceeding what their expectations are.

Army: As it stands right now, I have full faith in Army. As I've mentioned before, his good moves have far outweighed his bad ones and he seems to have a genuine desire to win here.

Hitchcock: It's really tough to complain about a record breaking season we had, but there was also another early playoff exit. At times I didn't really understand his line juggling but my biggest peeve about Hitch was the complete failure to try anything different on the powerplay during the playoffs. Try different setups or something, but it was just the same thing over and over and there was absolutely no success. To me, that part was coaching more than lack of player execution.

Players: We need a goal scorer. That was why we lost this year, and probably last year as well. There were ample opportunities to score and win the Hawks series but we couldn't finish with any consistency, except for Tarasenko. Call it bad luck, call it whatever you want, but when it seems like it took about 15 shots for us to score 1 goal and they take about 5, that's not going to end well. It was frustrating watching us hog the puck for long stretches and taking shot after shot only to have them take it down the ice and score right away. We need finishers. Steen was that guy for the first half, but after his injury wasn't quite the same. I think Tarasenko is going to be one (he took big strides this year anyway), but we need someone who is proven. Schwartz will be a good one as well, but I don't think he's going to be the sniper type. He'd be the guy you put with the sniper because he makes plays.

Anyway, my own humble assessment is that we need to make a few player tweaks. Hitch should get one more year. If we have another early exit or any obvious issues along the way I could see a change being made there, but not right now. Army is a non-issue to me. Let him finish what he's started. The team is still young. There's not reason to blow everything up. For the people saying that the last two seasons are a direct result of Army not addressing the team's needs, I didn't see it that way. I saw him expecting more out of certain players and not getting the result. I saw him making moves that I also thought would bolster the lineup, but it didn't pan out. The argument here is so subjective though. I can see both sides, but I tend to put more blame on the guys actually playing the game that I do to the ones watching. If I know that the team is going to be bad or they are struggling and I see nothing being done to fix it, that's when I start blaming the GM. I'm not feeling that way about this team.
Last edited by ViPeRx007 on Sat May 03, 2014 7:41 pm, edited 7 times in total.
2015-2016 Official LGB Sponsor of Jaden Schwartz (IR) & The Hockey Gods
2014-2015 Official LGB Sponsor of T.J. Oshie
2013-2014 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Ryan Reaves
2011-2012 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko

flyingnote38
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:25 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by flyingnote38 »

ComradeT wrote:I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.

So keep.
When people have a strong opinion on a subject and are presented with equivocal data about said topic, they tend to become more entrenched in their views rather than to become less entrenched.

Take Armstrong's last two deadlines. You see him addressing needs and giving us the best opportunity to win without mortgaging the future.

I look at the exact same data and see him significantly mortgaging the future while yet failing to address the team's most pressing need -- offense -- at either deadline. Over the two deadlines, he dealt 2 firsts, a second, a third, a fifth, three midling prospects, and Stewie. If we sign Miller you can add another first to the pile. If that isn't mortgaging the future for a small market franchise with a short pocketed owner, I'd hate to see what is.
2016-7 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2017-8 sponsor of Tage Thompson
2018-9 sponsor of Ryan O'Reilly
2019-20 sponsor of old time hockey
2020-21 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2021-22 sponsor of Pavel Buchnevich
2022-23 sponsor of Brayden Schenn
2023-24 sponsor of Justin Faulk

User avatar
Oaklandblue
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by Oaklandblue »

flyingnote38 wrote:
ComradeT wrote:I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.

So keep.
When people have a strong opinion on a subject and are presented with equivocal data about said topic, they tend to become more entrenched in their views rather than to become less entrenched.

Take Armstrong's last two deadlines. You see him addressing needs and giving us the best opportunity to win without mortgaging the future.

I look at the exact same data and see him significantly mortgaging the future while yet failing to address the team's most pressing need -- offense -- at either deadline. Over the two deadlines, he dealt 2 firsts, a second, a third, a fifth, three midling prospects, and Stewie. If we sign Miller you can add another first to the pile. If that isn't mortgaging the future for a small market franchise with a short pocketed owner, I'd hate to see what is.
Say we didn't make the Miller trade, for the same of argument. Say the end result of the playoffs is the same as it is regardless who is in goal. We are left with the same problems with the bonus of some picks, Carrier and Chris Stewart with Halak gone. We need to sign big time scoring and that's not going to come from the draft, and if it does, it'll be a few years down the line. And even then, that's no gurantee. We need to pay for one.
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!

flyingnote38
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:25 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by flyingnote38 »

Oaklandblue wrote:
flyingnote38 wrote: If that isn't mortgaging the future for a small market franchise with a short pocketed owner, I'd hate to see what is.
Say we didn't make the Miller trade, for the same of argument. Say the end result of the playoffs is the same as it is regardless who is in goal. We are left with the same problems with the bonus of some picks, Carrier and Chris Stewart with Halak gone. We need to sign big time scoring and that's not going to come from the draft, and if it does, it'll be a few years down the line. And even then, that's no gurantee. We need to pay for one.
I'd say we need to sign or acquire 2 top six forwards; one center is a must. But the likely candidates there are not elite scorers so that still leaves a need for a winger with 40ish potential (in addition to Tarasenko).

Picks near the end of the first round aren't likely to provide immediate help which is why they represent 'the future.' To sustain competitiveness, we cannot look to this ownership group to spend at the cap on a year in year out basis. We need to restock via the draft, otherwise we are going to do a nose dive back to the bottom in a few years like the Canucks just did or slightly further back the Sabres or Oilers.
2016-7 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2017-8 sponsor of Tage Thompson
2018-9 sponsor of Ryan O'Reilly
2019-20 sponsor of old time hockey
2020-21 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2021-22 sponsor of Pavel Buchnevich
2022-23 sponsor of Brayden Schenn
2023-24 sponsor of Justin Faulk

User avatar
ViPeRx007
LGB Booster - Yellow
LGB Booster - Yellow
Posts: 9765
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Billings, MT

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by ViPeRx007 »

Let's just sign and trade for all the best players. It's easy. I do it in the NHL games all the time.
2015-2016 Official LGB Sponsor of Jaden Schwartz (IR) & The Hockey Gods
2014-2015 Official LGB Sponsor of T.J. Oshie
2013-2014 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Ryan Reaves
2011-2012 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko

glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 11410
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by glen a richter »

Coach Q said in an interview that the Blues game was very predictable. That's our biggest problem, I think. There's one style and a complete inability to shake it up or adjust to different opponents so once a good team figures out the game plan, they can expose weaknesses such as the crap PP.

I see a team that has trouble entering the zone at times, goes offsides a lot, shoots wide all the time (not by design, that's a bullshit excuse made up by our esteemed broadcasting crew), is kind of slow and takes way too long to do things on the PP and so does the coaching staff of every non-shitty team we play against.
Sponsor of Joel "Future" HOFer 2023-2024

flyingnote38
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:25 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by flyingnote38 »

glen a richter wrote:Coach Q said in an interview that the Blues game was very predictable. That's our biggest problem, I think. There's one style and a complete inability to shake it up or adjust to different opponents so once a good team figures out the game plan, they can expose weaknesses such as the crap PP.

I see a team that has trouble entering the zone at times, goes offsides a lot, shoots wide all the time (not by design, that's a bullshit excuse made up by our esteemed broadcasting crew), is kind of slow and takes way too long to do things on the PP and so does the coaching staff of every non-shitty team we play against.
I had to go back to your first post on this thread to see which way you voted. cause you confused me a bit with this one

the Blues game was very predictable.>> that's on Hitch
There's one style and a complete inability to shake it up>>> again on Hitch
has trouble entering the zone at times>>>> probably more on Hitch but starting to be a talent issue so a bit on Army too
goes offsides a lot>>>> as above a combo of coaching and talent but this one is still more Hitch than Army
shoots wide all the time >>>>> this one's on Army
is kind of slow>>>>> again on Army
takes way too long to do things on the PP>>>>> Both but I think more of a talent issue than a coaching issue so more Army than Hitch

The commentators pegged our power play issue in the series; we had no down low play. Kept passing it around the umbrella waiting for a lane to open up but this allowed the Hawks to play out high on our point men so as soon as the Blues made one bad pass into the skates instead of on the tape, the Hawks would be on them and clear the zone.

Well, that and every shot the D took was either blocked or missed the net.
And no one was in position for reounds.
2016-7 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2017-8 sponsor of Tage Thompson
2018-9 sponsor of Ryan O'Reilly
2019-20 sponsor of old time hockey
2020-21 sponsor of Jaden Schwartz
2021-22 sponsor of Pavel Buchnevich
2022-23 sponsor of Brayden Schenn
2023-24 sponsor of Justin Faulk

User avatar
Oaklandblue
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by Oaklandblue »

flyingnote38 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:Coach Q said in an interview that the Blues game was very predictable. That's our biggest problem, I think. There's one style and a complete inability to shake it up or adjust to different opponents so once a good team figures out the game plan, they can expose weaknesses such as the crap PP.

I see a team that has trouble entering the zone at times, goes offsides a lot, shoots wide all the time (not by design, that's a bullshit excuse made up by our esteemed broadcasting crew), is kind of slow and takes way too long to do things on the PP and so does the coaching staff of every non-shitty team we play against.
I had to go back to your first post on this thread to see which way you voted. cause you confused me a bit with this one

the Blues game was very predictable.>> that's on Hitch
There's one style and a complete inability to shake it up>>> again on Hitch
has trouble entering the zone at times>>>> probably more on Hitch but starting to be a talent issue so a bit on Army too
goes offsides a lot>>>> as above a combo of coaching and talent but this one is still more Hitch than Army
shoots wide all the time >>>>> this one's on Army
is kind of slow>>>>> again on Army
takes way too long to do things on the PP>>>>> Both but I think more of a talent issue than a coaching issue so more Army than Hitch

The commentators pegged our power play issue in the series; we had no down low play. Kept passing it around the umbrella waiting for a lane to open up but this allowed the Hawks to play out high on our point men so as soon as the Blues made one bad pass into the skates instead of on the tape, the Hawks would be on them and clear the zone.

Well, that and every shot the D took was either blocked or missed the net.
And no one was in position for reounds.
You know...
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Alexander Steen
2017-2018 LGB Sponsor of Jaromir Jagr, Calgary Flames
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!

User avatar
ComradeT
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:08 am

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by ComradeT »

flyingnote38 wrote:
ComradeT wrote:I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.

So keep.
When people have a strong opinion on a subject and are presented with equivocal data about said topic, they tend to become more entrenched in their views rather than to become less entrenched.

Take Armstrong's last two deadlines. You see him addressing needs and giving us the best opportunity to win without mortgaging the future.

I look at the exact same data and see him significantly mortgaging the future while yet failing to address the team's most pressing need -- offense -- at either deadline. Over the two deadlines, he dealt 2 firsts, a second, a third, a fifth, three midling prospects, and Stewie. If we sign Miller you can add another first to the pile. If that isn't mortgaging the future for a small market franchise with a short pocketed owner, I'd hate to see what is.
You may be right there. The ultimate piece of the puzzle both of us are missing is what kind of a message Army gets from ownership. I don't doubt Stillman wants the cup but he's the guy holding the wallet, not Army, so we may be seeing the best results he could achieve given the budget for the year.
2018 - 2019 Official sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2017 - 2018 Official sponsor of Joel "Top Shelf" Edmundson
2016 - 2017 Official sponsor of Nail "THE YAK" Yakupov

glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 11410
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by glen a richter »

My ultimate opinion is this (which isn't, overall, worth a bucket of warm piss):

The organization can go whatever direction they choose. I don't own the team, I don't run the team, so it is what it is. if Army and Hitch stay, then as a fan I'll support them and hope that they do the right things. If Army and/or Hitch go, people have been going on and on about "who will replace them?" with very little insight into who might replace them.

We've been ranting about not having enough offense, no firepower. A GM who has built teams with offense and firepower will tend to, presumably, do the same thing no matter where they go. Mike Gillis and George McPhee both have done that. Both are presently unemployed. Barry Trotz is available to coach, as is any slew of experienced current or former head or assistant coaches or front office personnel with ties to the organization: Oates, Hull, Weight, MacInnis, Lowry. There are numerous replacements for Hitch and Army. If the organization was going to go that way, they probably would have gotten the ball rolling on that already. So, it renders these discussions moot at this point. But if they had chosen to go in that direction, there's not exactly a complete void of available replacements.
Sponsor of Joel "Future" HOFer 2023-2024

User avatar
Misc. Blues
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 7350
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:02 am
Location: In Hiding

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by Misc. Blues »

Oaklandblue wrote:
glen a richter wrote:
ComradeT wrote:I think Army is doing the right things so far. Even with Miller not living up to the expectation, that trade was about two things: ridding the Blues of a player that frustrated everyone to no end in Stewart and solving an equally frustrating goaltending situation by bringing in a goalie with a solid resume to replace the very inconsistent Halak. That Elliott wasn't given a consideration as a number 1 with Allen as a back up may just as well be down to Elliott's not showing enough or not asking loudly enough to be that guy.

The Perron trade may have been a salary dump but it also removed a potential distraction in a locker room as Perron was definitely at odds with Hitch. We have to keep in mind that finances may be limited so while we did give up one of our best scorers, Army was probably happy to dump his paycheck while expecting Oshie, Steen, Schwartz and Tarasenko to pick up the slack. And to some extent they did, maybe not individually but by committee. Blues were not goal-shy this season. The playoffs showed that while the Blues have Tarasenko on the rise, teams like Chicago usually have more than one guy like that (usually more than two), and this is an issue Army has yet to resolve. It's likely that a suitable deal just wasn't there this season and he didn't want to give up too much to go after the scorer as the Blues have done so many times in the past. The big goalie trade was done, and another big trade was probably too tough to pull. I am looking forward to this off-season to see what he does. I am not going to rehash all of the possibilities, and the need is evident to all of us. I just wanted to point out that the trend with Army has been identifying the issues and making moves to solve them. And that's what I would expect from a GM: careful moves aimed at increasing the Blues' chances of achieving success without mortgaging the team's future.


So keep.
In an interview with Tarasenko, he was talking about joking around at team functions and how he made a knock-knock joke that directly ripped Perron. Seems the team didn't like him in the locker room as he was a crybaby whiner.
Perron is having a blast off year..in the East. This matters to my point. Why?

Operating on the cheap isn't going to get us anywhere. We've gotten this far being on the cheap by developing the talent we have through the AHL and through minor signings and have hit the ceiling. It's time to invest real money into the future of the franchise or go home. I don't want to hear what money they don't have or may not have, they only way at this point they're going to make money on this situation is by investing it/spending it and sign real front line players.

We are in possibly the most competative conference in sports. We can't just spend to budget, we have to build a real contender. If we were in the East, we'd make the ECF or Finals. Beyond a very small handful, they don't have the kind of teams that the Ducks, Kings, Hawks, etc. evident by the BJs making the playoffs for the second time in history right after realignment.

To make the finals in this Conference we have to be the best, or we have to go home. Anything less is going to end up in mediocrity. With the history the franchise has, the only way we're going to sign those real game changers for us is with cash.
By that logic the Wings should be #1 and I refuse to listen to that kind of drivel...LOL :lol: But I get what you are saying...oh and EDM Oil is North not east or west LOL
2016-2017 official sponsor of Alex Pietrangelo (aka Captain Pie)
2015-2016 official sponsor of Jori Lehtera (aka Yorry)
2014-2015 official sponsor of Jay Bouwmeester (aka Jay-bo)
I hate the Shitcago "Black Holes"©®™...they really suck that much...
The Detoilet "dude bangs" ©®™... suck too...repeatedly and more often... ;)

ecbm
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Army: Keep or Fire?

Post by ecbm »

I'd bet money that Armstrong will make moves to improve the offense in the offseason. He has to.
But will he make the moves that turn the Blues into a successful playoff team or-dare I say it?-champions? I've been watching for 30 years. I'm not really impressed with nebulous improvement.

Also agree with the point above about Steen. I do think Army was taken in by his first half. Actually, it's not what just what I think. Homeboy's performance before that extension vs. after it is enough to make your blood boil.

Post Reply