Blues rebuild revisited

[WaukeeBlues]

Just a quick note on perron - I am convinced the severity of the injury is related to how the Blues handled the situation on the night it happened. There is no way you are out cold on the ice and don't have a concussion. I don't care what tests a player passes in the locker room, when they are unresponsive for a noticeable amount of time, they are going to sit for the rest of the game. By playing the remainder of hte game, he very likely did additional damage and contributed to the trauma - the exact reason they won't let him play or work out now. Totally irresponsible imo, and grounds to fire a training/medical staff. (this does not apply to cam or king or guys who don't think much to start with, btw)

And our young guys will be who they are. I think this team is close to being competitive, but I will wait and see what the ownership does to improve the team in the off season.

As soon as Perron went down, this team went down. The spiral of players falling apart that followed was icing on the cake, but even when all the rest of the major injuries returned, this team continued to suck, in spite of the moves that were made to supposedly improve the club. At the end of the day, it could actually be that Perron is the most important cog on this team.

Meh I would disagree. There was just no consistency all year. Even we on this board would comment on it all the time: win 5 in a row, lose 4, win 6, lose 8... just never ended. They never got into anything like a 2 wins for every loss rhythm that you see the better teams in the league doing on a regular basis. Maybe that's still a sign of their youth, who knows. One thing's for sure though after this trade deadline... this team isn't any older.

[cprice12]

Remember a half dozen years ago? Some folks stood on their soapbox and preached how crucial it was that the Blues finish poorly for five or six years to get high draft picks and build from within? Remember how they said that was a sure fire recipe for success? Remember the debates and the arguments? Well, we tried going through the draft with high draft picks, but that hasn't worked...not even close really. Fail. We're still missing the most important pieces.

There is no formula. There is no recipe for success. Anyone who says they have the recipe is either an idiot or a liar. They were wrong. Time to try something else.

I just want the Blues to act like they want to win. It's one thing to say you want to win...anyone can do that, but it's another when you actually spend the money to try and bring a winner home. That's what I want to see. In the 90's and early 00's, we had some damn good teams. And no, we didn't win anything...but the organization spent some money and tried to win...and at least those teams were a blast to watch. And to be honest, some of those teams could have won cups...they just didn't get lucky enough in the playoffs. That's what it boiled down to. And I'm not saying spend truckloads of money, but Jesus...get off the cap floor. It's embarrassing. I'm not sure how management can look us fans square in the eye and say they are doing everything possible to put together a cup contending team when they don't want to spend any money.

I don't know what to expect for next year either...because there aren't any superstar forwards available as free agents next season that aren't named Brad Richards. So if they do bring in someone, it will probably be a mid-level forward (yay...another one of those) or a big name in a trade...ugh. There goes any depth we may have had.

And then there's the ownership issue...so spending money in the offseason probably wouldn't happen even if there were 10 superstars available.

What a mess.

[Portland Blues]

In the 90's and early 00's, we had some damn good teams. And no, we didn't win anything...but the organization spent some money and tried to win...and at least those teams were a blast to watch. And to be honest, some of those teams could have won cups...they just didn't get lucky enough in the playoffs. That's what it boiled down to. And I'm not saying spend truckloads of money, but Jesus...get off the cap floor. It's embarrassing. I'm not sure how management can look us fans square in the eye and say they are doing everything possible to put together a cup contending team when they don't want to spend any money.

[not_a_wings_fan]

In the 90's and early 00's, we had some damn good teams. And no, we didn't win anything...but the organization spent some money and tried to win...and at least those teams were a blast to watch. And to be honest, some of those teams could have won cups...they just didn't get lucky enough in the playoffs. That's what it boiled down to. And I'm not saying spend truckloads of money, but Jesus...get off the cap floor. It's embarrassing. I'm not sure how management can look us fans square in the eye and say they are doing everything possible to put together a cup contending team when they don't want to spend any money.

I have no issues with a team on the floor of the standings spending near the cap floor. I am also not mad they aren't spending more money. They really need to sort out who can play and who can't, and only then spend money to add pieces/keep parts. It's smart business imo.

[Nyghtewynd]

I'm sure they want to sort it out. They can sort it out without a dime of my money.

We're quickly becoming the Chicago Cubs of the NHL: not because we don't want, but because the owners know that we don't have to win because all of the rubes will buy tickets anyway.

[AlsWoodenStick]

I have no issues with a team on the floor of the standings spending near the cap floor. I am also not mad they aren't spending more money. They really need to sort out who can play and who can't, and only then spend money to add pieces/keep parts.

The problem is that this team advertised itself to the fans as one that would make "EVERY GAME COUNT" and be a playoff team. They did it when they justified the ticket price increase last off season, they did it when they had the b.s. "Summer of Signings," they did it when they gave a 50% discount offer to season ticket holders if this team didn't make they playoffs. I understand that this year's team had a number of exceptions, but the bottom line is we need to spend more money for a top scorer or two to make this team start a new playoff streak.

It's smart business imo.

Yeah, it's really smart to somehow stay 10+M under the cap and at the bottom of the league while still showing a sign of a heartbeat that keeps fans coming back and buying beer and dogs year after year after year. It's very smart. But guess what? I'm wising the (Frank) up and might be a little smarter about how I spend my money next year. From what I've heard from some other Note fans, they're getting smarter too.

I'll gladly shell out more $ to see a winning team, but I need to see management spending more as well.

[cprice12]

I'm sure they want to sort it out. They can sort it out without a dime of my money.

We're quickly becoming the Chicago Cubs of the NHL: not because we don't want, but because the owners know that we don't have to win because all of the rubes will buy tickets anyway.

Well, that's not true. It was only a few years ago when the building was half empty during every home game.
If the team sucks and the fans are pissed at management/ownership...they won't show up. They have made it known that they want to see effort up and down the organization before they will go to games.

[theohall]

As has been stated before, the Cubs are a poor analogy. They at least won a championship.

[DaDitka]

I'm sure they want to sort it out. They can sort it out without a dime of my money.

We're quickly becoming the Chicago Cubs of the NHL: not because we don't want, but because the owners know that we don't have to win because all of the rubes will buy tickets anyway.

Well, that's not true. It was only a few years ago when the building was half empty during every home game.
If the team sucks and the fans are pissed at management/ownership...they won't show up. They have made it known that they want to see effort up and down the organization before they will go to games.

Well that movement was still aided by the lockout, but you are correct....the fans will eventually quit going, however their 'reaction time' is slower then Halak's. If the Blues continue sucking for two or three more season you will start seeing a difference at the ticket window. Personally, I'd rather not endure another 3 years of suffering.


There is a good base here, get the club sold and let's get ready to make a serious run in 2012-2013.

[not_a_wings_fan]

I could care less how they try to "sell" the team to the fan. I put "every game counts" or whatever in the same category as "grow 2-4 inches TODAY" - It's advertising.

The on ice product clearly needs to improve, but I have confidence that this group will get it done or get moved out of the way.

[thedoc]

According to NHL.com we are 21st in goals against and 20th scoring. I know we have been saying we need a scoring forward but I think if DP comes back and Stewart, Bergie and Backes continue what they are doing it will easily move us up into the top 15 on scoring. I really believe that our main problems are on D and between the pipes. I think we need a good crease clearing D man and a solid back-up. Halak has never shouldered the load for a full season and it is still an unknown if he can handle the work load.

[Slim]

If it's any consolation, I just won Lord Stanley's Cup with the pre-season roster in NHL11.

I doubt that made any of us feel any better, but if it can happen in a video game it's bound to happen in the real world, right?

[thedoc]

If it's any consolation, I just won Lord Stanley's Cup with the pre-season roster in NHL11.

I doubt that made any of us feel any better, but if it can happen in a video game it's bound to happen in the real world, right?

No

[theohall]

If it's any consolation, I just won Lord Stanley's Cup with the pre-season roster in NHL11.

I doubt that made any of us feel any better, but if it can happen in a video game it's bound to happen in the real world, right?

Were you actually playing or were you simming the games, because actually playing doesn't count. Anyone can win with any team while actually playing.

[WaukeeBlues]

If it's any consolation, I just won Lord Stanley's Cup with the pre-season roster in NHL11.

I doubt that made any of us feel any better, but if it can happen in a video game it's bound to happen in the real world, right?

Were you actually playing or were you simming the games, because actually playing doesn't count. Anyone can win with any team while actually playing.

Although it's absolutely no fun to do, the only indicator you have a kick azz team is if you simulate all the games and you still win the cup.

[Slim]

Does playing on superstar count? And I did sim roughly half of the games.

[TheoSqua]

I don't think the Blues lost enough, even in their poor seasons. And then when they did have high picks they drafted poorly. The last two cup winners have several things in common:

1.) Multiple top 5 picks.
2.) Forwards
3.) Free Agent additions.

Chicago took Patrik Kane and Jonathan Toews. They signed several key Free Agents to win it all.
Pittsburgh had a top 3 pick FOUR years in a row. With that they took 3 forwards and a franchise goalie.
Washington's rebuild is considered a sucess, they had 3 top5 picks (2 forwards and a D-man)
Tampa Bay is reviving, what'd they have? Two top5 picks in the last 3 years. If Brett Connoly develops and they add some FA depth you'll see this being the next cup contender.

In comparison, the Blues only had two top5 picks in their entire rebuild and both were defensemen. From 2005-2009 the Blues took 4 forwards and 4 defensemen. The forwards have been on the team for 3 years. Pietrangelo is working out , and Johnson is only working out because he was traded for a forward.

Point is offensive talent is what wins in today's NHL. The top 10 teams in offense average 4th place in the standings, the top 10 in defense average 6th. None of the top10 in offense are out of the playoffs right now. 3 of 10 are for least goals allowed. It's even more telling if you remove teams that are top 10 in both. The 6 teams in the NHL that are top10 in offense but not top10 in defense have an average 4th in the standings, for defense it's a 7th seed...3 of the 6 teams are currently out of the playoffs.

You look at the worst teams around 2005-2006 and the season after:
Chicago drafted offense, won a cup.
Washington drafted offense, won a presidents trophy.
Pittsburg drafted offesne, won a cup.
LA drafted defense, is 9th place in standings.
St. Louis drafted defense, is in 13th.
Phoenix rebounded with defense last year....this year they're 9th in goals scored and 21st in goals allowed.....and in the playoffs.
Boston was terrible that year....they're 5th in the league in offense. (and they've drafted 5 forwards in the 1st round since 2005...though it hasn't helped them much this year)

Also the winning teams spend. Washington is 1st in smallest cap space available, Chicago 4th...if you look at cap hit Boston is first and Pittsburgh is 6th...even Phoenix outspent St. Louis by $5m this year.

[flyingnote38]

I don't think the Blues lost enough, even in their poor seasons. And then when they did have high picks they drafted poorly. The last two cup winners have several things in common:

1.) Multiple top 5 picks.
2.) Forwards
3.) Free Agent additions.

Chicago took Patrik Kane and Jonathan Toews. They signed several key Free Agents to win it all.
Pittsburgh had a top 3 pick FOUR years in a row. With that they took 3 forwards and a franchise goalie.
Washington's rebuild is considered a sucess, they had 3 top5 picks (2 forwards and a D-man)
Tampa Bay is reviving, what'd they have? Two top5 picks in the last 3 years. Washington drafted offense, won a presidents trophy.
Pittsburg drafted offesne, won a cup.
LA drafted defense, is 9th place in standings.
.

I think you are overlooking (or underestimating) the effect of being bad in the right year. Not all #1 overall picks are created equal.

The teams above that thrived did so not just because they took offense, but because of the player they had the option to take. Pitt had Crosby fall into their lap, a year after getting Malkin as probably the best #2 overall pick in the past decade.

Tampa has landed Vinny and Stamkos with their #1s overall. Washington got Ovechkin in 04.

The hawks were fortunate to get Toews 3rd in 06 and then landed Kane #1 in 07.

All these teams have also used top five picks on D men: Pitt in 02, Caps in 07, Hawks in 04, Bolts in 09.


I think a factor in the Blues selection of Johnson was that he was a "safer" pick: it was clear who the best dman in the draft was, the best forward was up for debate.

[cardsfan04]

I don't think the Blues lost enough, even in their poor seasons. And then when they did have high picks they drafted poorly. The last two cup winners have several things in common:

1.) Multiple top 5 picks.
2.) Forwards
3.) Free Agent additions.

Chicago took Patrik Kane and Jonathan Toews. They signed several key Free Agents to win it all.
Pittsburgh had a top 3 pick FOUR years in a row. With that they took 3 forwards and a franchise goalie.
Washington's rebuild is considered a sucess, they had 3 top5 picks (2 forwards and a D-man)
Tampa Bay is reviving, what'd they have? Two top5 picks in the last 3 years. Washington drafted offense, won a presidents trophy.
Pittsburg drafted offesne, won a cup.
LA drafted defense, is 9th place in standings.
.

I think you are overlooking (or underestimating) the effect of being bad in the right year. Not all #1 overall picks are created equal.

The teams above that thrived did so not just because they took offense, but because of the player they had the option to take. Pitt had Crosby fall into their lap, a year after getting Malkin as probably the best #2 overall pick in the past decade.

Tampa has landed Vinny and Stamkos with their #1s overall. Washington got Ovechkin in 04.

The hawks were fortunate to get Toews 3rd in 06 and then landed Kane #1 in 07.

All these teams have also used top five picks on D men: Pitt in 02, Caps in 07, Hawks in 04, Bolts in 09.


I think a factor in the Blues selection of Johnson was that he was a "safer" pick: it was clear who the best dman in the draft was, the best forward was up for debate.

Agree with all of this. There's also a lot of luck in players actually reaching their potential. It is very possible to make the right pick at the time that all 30 teams would make, and for it to not work out. It not working out doesn't mean it was the incorrect decision to draft a player, even if you would do it different 5 years later. They can only go on what information they had at the time.

[DaDitka]

It would be different if we would have passed on a great scorer when we took Johnson.

As far as I can remember, the only first round pick we really took a lot of heat for (at the time) was Oshie.