SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

TheEarthmaster

Good Opinion Haver
Membre depuis
7 juin 2018
Équipe favorite
Blues de St-Louis
Messages dans les forums
1825
Messages par jour
0.9
Forum: Armchair-GMil y a 12 heures
Sujet: Dvorsky
Forum: Armchair-GM12 mars à 18 h 27
Sujet: retool
Forum: Armchair-GM12 mars à 16 h 55
Forum: Armchair-GM6 mars à 18 h 5
Sujet: Colton
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KingExLeafs</b></div><div>Parayko is not an asset Blues fans and Leafs fans think he is. He is a ticking time bomb contract wise. Older player who plays a tough physical game, who knows how his health will hold up? Is there even a market for him?

So the trade is really Minten, Liljegren and a 1st for Buch half retained and that's a respectable offer.</div></div>

I said as much a comment or two up that I have no clue what the ultimate value on Parayko if he's traded would end up being. It would probably be weird. And I agree that whoever is dealing with that contract at age 34-37 is probably going to be in a world of hurt.

That said, there's a reason teams sign those contracts in the first place. If he was a pending UFA that signed with the leafs, I'm not sure how much less the contract would be- a year or two shorter and maybe a million less? That's not nothing but that's not much less of a troublesome deal.

At the end of the day though you're still putting him at the top of your lineup right now, because you need a guy there and he can do the job, at least for now. That's why those contracts get signed. That has to be worth more than a pending UFA that, again, EVERY armchair-gm has the leafs moving if they're adding big salary, and a guy who has 19 points on the season, bad contract or not. This is especially true if the Blues still think they can compete with Parayko (a belief I personally think is misguided, but I'm not the Blues so)

The Buchnevich offer- I feel like that's less than Vancouver gave up for Lindholm without retention. I guess your mileage on Kuzmenko compared to Liljigren might vary. But I think Buchnevich PLUS retention has to be worth more than Lindholm, even with the winger vs center thing. He's having a better year, and the term only helps a contender further in the future.
Forum: Armchair-GM6 mars à 17 h 12
Sujet: Colton
Forum: Armchair-GM29 févr. à 15 h 28
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CantStopWontStop</b></div><div>I don’t take issue with much, but I aim differently.

GMDA and the Blues record of drafting and development stands on its own, so things like Burns and Stenberg are hard to criticize.

My issue is that Doug Armstrong went to the draft floor last year intending to retool the roster, and did not.

At the previous trade deadline he took all the center ice minutes, except Robert Thomas, and traded them away. The replacement? 1 center who needed another team to pay half his pay due to being meh.

So now stl leads in cumulative wjc u20 scoring. That’s a huge waste for our organization, we have no business having that much firepower in non nhl leagues. He should have done his job, used some of that to have a better active roster.

What was the point of Vrána? When it was clear he was not working, the replacement is?

During the season we’ve had countless games where scandella, or another lefty, is on the right so perunovich can get minutes. Fine. I guess. Except it’s not. It’s routinely punished by other teams. The jets got 2 goals dumping the puck to scandellas side and watching the blues screw it up. The next night, the blues play the oilers, use normal defense pairs, and surprise?! The team can break out of its zone normally and the game is competitive.

So he had that deadline, the draft floor, and whiffed. Now he has a trade deadline. If he whiffs again, fire him. Maybe he’s pissed off too many of his peers, or they don’t trust him, whatever.

I hope it’s embarrassing for him. He’s been a smug pos the last 2 years or so. Dude thinks he is waaaay fancier than he really is.</div></div>

Better active roster for what purpose? To barely make the playoffs? Like they could trade a 1st and Otto Stenberg for Jake Guenztel but is that really making them all that much closer to a cup this year, even if they make the playoffs? And then what do you do in few years, without a good forward prospect, a seemingly top 15 pick, and with 33 year old Jake Guentzel?

If we're assuming they literally can't move anyone with a NTC, I think they've done a decent job with roster decisions since last year- didn't commit any more money to a team that isn't competitive, prioritizing player development (Perunovich, Neighbours) over what's actively going to give them the best roster to win every night. They need to start shedding their bigger money commitments but again, not exactly something they have had full control over (and that's what Armstrong's biggest failing is).

I agree that he needs to be more active in retooling the roster, but I'm not sure if you can get there without taking some steps back first.
Forum: Armchair-GM29 févr. à 15 h 8
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HolyJumpin81</b></div><div>I'd argue it was Faulk. But then again, the reason were in a retool is mainly offense not defense.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mokumboi</b></div><div>First of all, step back from the ledge about our prospects, buddy. Lindstein is far better than Gunny (who isn't a bad thing btw). Develop is not a straight line, sometimes demotions are just to allow the kid to play top minutes with top responsibilities before he comes back. Dvorsky will again give us two 1Cs, a rare advantage.

As for the defense, I keep saying this, it's not all about "the defense" crew. So much of the blame lies with the forwards it's not funny.</div></div>

The floor would be higher if they had better forwards, but I still think you'd would be building on a rotten foundation with the defense. I'm not saying they couldn't make the playoffs, or even win a round or two with this defense, but you're not building a sustainable cup contender if the centerpiece of the defense is 30 year old Colton Parayko- a player I have a lot of time for- let alone the bloated support staff.

I don't disagree with the fact that their immediate problems are with scoring, but that was a die they more or less intentionally cast. They traded all the forwards who were, though old, still top 6 players and then replaced them with guys who were either on waivers or headed that way. So this was predictable, if not outright expected. They have a bunch of forward reinforcements coming though, while the defense is exactly the same. That's still the area that needs the most work.
Forum: Armchair-GM29 févr. à 14 h 51
Forum: Armchair-GM28 févr. à 17 h 19
Forum: Armchair-GM23 févr. à 16 h 3
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NHLfan10506</b></div><div>I do not think Fitzy is the problem

TyeZerker <a href="https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/4470138">last summer</a> "They dont need a goalie RN, stop panicking over it."

TyeZerker today: "This team is built poorly by Fitzy, dude is not a good GM .....refused to get a goalie ....When others gonna start to question the GM of the Devils."</div></div>

Damn dude had the RECIEPTS!

If you don't have a starting caliber goalie in the system who have a lot of control over, wading in goalie waters can be really tricky. So many big goalie signings that just have not worked at all- Campbell, Korpisalo, Merzlikins, Bobrovsky until VERY recently- that kind of stuff can really really handcuff your team. Best case scenario is you get a guy who you can do for cheap and can readily move on from if/when the situation arises, and then build a good defense around him.

I'd say Fitz did a great job in that regard. Graves, Marino, Sigenthaler (the latter's inconsistent play this year aside) were all really strong adds, and he knew when to move on from Graves and Severson as well. Lot of young guns just breaking into the league. Dougie thing is unfortunate, but this wasn't a guy who like had an extensive injury history when they signed him. And yeah, the Vaneck thing is a risk you run when you don't have a #1 goalie ready, and that sucks but I think it's better than the alternative. Paying for saves rarely works out well. Usually you gotta draft and develop your guy.

I'm not really worried about Timo Meier. Palat thing is fair, though I do like what he brings to this lineup. I would also say I'm not really sure why Fitzgerald hasn't made a coaching change (maybe less so now than, say, 2-3 months ago). Best case always seemed like Ruff didn't hurt anything, I don't think he's the coach that can make a roster more than the sum of its parts.
Forum: Armchair-GM21 févr. à 12 h 9
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BDHockey</b></div><div>
I thought the value was relatively fine. Bolduc has good value, but he might also be one of the better of our abundant young forwards to turn into a defenseman.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AC14</b></div><div>The offer was an overpay. It was a former 17th OA pick and a 2nd.

If you're looking to get the type of return you suggested, Ferraro isn't getting moved, which I'd imagine is fine if you see him as Jaccob Slavin as you seem to.</div></div>

I tend to agree that of the "higher end" forwards the Blues have in their system Bolduc is the one that makes the most sense to move in a larger trade. And yes the Blues have been winning recently, so that makes it more tempting to pull of a larger trade now. But I'm not convinced now is really the time for the Blues be moving those assets given the money they have on the books. So many of the guys they're relying on heavily being over 30- Parayko, Faulk, Binnington, Schenn in particular- there's still plenty of opportunity for this team to take a step back in the next year or two even with the reinforcements they have coming.

And there's a lot of variance to what Ferraro can be moving forward. He's got a good enough hockey IQ to be a solid defenseman on a contending team, but at 25 he's probably not reaching "top pair on a contending team" level anymore. I think he was an easy player to get hyped about given his attitude and more intangible qualities but if the Sharks are valuing him at Slavin level, that's especially too rich for the Blues given where they are.

I'm not opposed to adding though. I'd just bet smaller. Blues should consider looking into Ty Emberson if they're targeting young defensemen on the Sharks. Good defensive metrics, better than Ferraro's (on a terrible defensive team). He's been averaging 18 minutes a night for them (though he's only played half the season). Don't think he would cost a lot either.
Forum: Armchair-GM6 févr. à 17 h 37
I do agree with your take on the team (that they're likely not going to be a contender for 3 years, and so why bother really). But I think there could be more follow through on the direction to set up that future contention window.

If they're not going to be a contender for three years, why waste a retention slot to dump Krug for basically nothing when his contract will be up in three years anyway (with his trade clause reducing in one year), while keeping Parayko's contract (years 34-37 of which would be running through the "new" contention window) instead of trying to trade him instead? I think he's played pretty well but the upside is that he's the SAME player in three years. He's not going to be a better player. He'll probably be a worse one. Why should a non-contending team take that risk? Keep Krug (or Faulk) instead and peacefully move on in three years, while maybe someone gives you something actually useful now in order to take on the last 6 years of that Parayko deal at full freight.

If they're going to sell assets with term, the assets that make sense to sell are a) players who are good and/or b) players whose remaining term is prohibitive for the long term future of this team. To me that describes Buchnevich/Parayko/Binnington/maybe Faulk. I'm not really worried about moving Leddy/Krug/Schenn/Saad. Most of both groups will have to turn over sooner than later, as we'll need the roster spaces, but as far as maximizing value while not handcuffing the future goes, I think the first group should be the priority on moving out.