The Fowler waste looks even WORSE than I thought

[neverchange27]

She doth protest way too much lol.

[sdaltons]

So just to review. No GM who wins a Cup within at least the first 9 years of their tenure deserves the credit because no matter how many moves they make, they could only have done so with the pieces left behind by the previous GM.

Review my first post.

Ok no more than half the credit.

How many years into the tenure does the Cup need to be for the existing GM to earn 75%?

I only speak to the Blues org. And I am 100% confident saying Army built on the extremely strong foundation that was already in place. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves credit for the dramatic fall.

It would not make sense for this not to apply to all teams. Every GM who has won inherits what they inherit and builds from there.

So when would we have needed to win that first Cup for Army to get 75? 2025? Would 15 years have been enough?

No I would not apply this logic to Steen as Army has left him a lackluster foundation.

So what year then?

And someone said the Cup roster had one guy brought in before Army took over. I can think of two but that doesn't change things much. If we hadn't still had Perron and Allen, would that have helped?

Keep in mind, I'm not even trying to get to full credit. Just 75%. 9 years and 2 leftover players only gets you 50%.

I was thinking about Petro and then forgot to type his name. Good lord.

[Chubbs0910]

So just to review. No GM who wins a Cup within at least the first 9 years of their tenure deserves the credit because no matter how many moves they make, they could only have done so with the pieces left behind by the previous GM.

Review my first post.

Ok no more than half the credit.

How many years into the tenure does the Cup need to be for the existing GM to earn 75%?

I only speak to the Blues org. And I am 100% confident saying Army built on the extremely strong foundation that was already in place. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves credit for the dramatic fall.

It would not make sense for this not to apply to all teams. Every GM who has won inherits what they inherit and builds from there.

So when would we have needed to win that first Cup for Army to get 75? 2025? Would 15 years have been enough?

No I would not apply this logic to Steen as Army has left him a lackluster foundation.

So what year then?

And someone said the Cup roster had one guy brought in before Army took over. I can think of two but that doesn't change things much. If we hadn't still had Perron and Allen, would that have helped?

Keep in mind, I'm not even trying to get to full credit. Just 75%. 9 years and 2 leftover players only gets you 50%.

I was thinking about Petro and then forgot to type his name. Good lord.

Tank, Schwartz, Petro. The excess of resources which gave you the young talent and cap room for Army to acquire JBo, Schenn, ROR.

Army's great at making moves when he has resources and cap at his disposal. But he Doug himself into a hole post cup and it's getting deeper. The contracts he gave out, took away roster flexibility as well as his greatest strength.

[sdaltons]

So just to review. No GM who wins a Cup within at least the first 9 years of their tenure deserves the credit because no matter how many moves they make, they could only have done so with the pieces left behind by the previous GM.

Review my first post.

Ok no more than half the credit.

How many years into the tenure does the Cup need to be for the existing GM to earn 75%?

I only speak to the Blues org. And I am 100% confident saying Army built on the extremely strong foundation that was already in place. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves credit for the dramatic fall.

It would not make sense for this not to apply to all teams. Every GM who has won inherits what they inherit and builds from there.

So when would we have needed to win that first Cup for Army to get 75? 2025? Would 15 years have been enough?

No I would not apply this logic to Steen as Army has left him a lackluster foundation.

So what year then?

And someone said the Cup roster had one guy brought in before Army took over. I can think of two but that doesn't change things much. If we hadn't still had Perron and Allen, would that have helped?

Keep in mind, I'm not even trying to get to full credit. Just 75%. 9 years and 2 leftover players only gets you 50%.

I was thinking about Petro and then forgot to type his name. Good lord.

Tank, Schwartz, Petro. The excess of resources which gave you the young talent and cap room for Army to acquire JBo, Schenn, ROR.

Army's great at making moves when he has resources and cap at his disposal. But he Doug himself into a hole post cup and it's getting deeper. The contracts he gave out, took away roster flexibility as well as his greatest strength.

Those first two were after Army took over. Doesn't work that way.

Anyway I'm just trying to establish a baseline. Telling that you won't answer.

[TheJackBurton]

So just to review. No GM who wins a Cup within at least the first 9 years of their tenure deserves the credit because no matter how many moves they make, they could only have done so with the pieces left behind by the previous GM.

Review my first post.

Ok no more than half the credit.

How many years into the tenure does the Cup need to be for the existing GM to earn 75%?

I only speak to the Blues org. And I am 100% confident saying Army built on the extremely strong foundation that was already in place. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves credit for the dramatic fall.

It would not make sense for this not to apply to all teams. Every GM who has won inherits what they inherit and builds from there.

So when would we have needed to win that first Cup for Army to get 75? 2025? Would 15 years have been enough?

No I would not apply this logic to Steen as Army has left him a lackluster foundation.

So what year then?

And someone said the Cup roster had one guy brought in before Army took over. I can think of two but that doesn't change things much. If we hadn't still had Perron and Allen, would that have helped?

Keep in mind, I'm not even trying to get to full credit. Just 75%. 9 years and 2 leftover players only gets you 50%.

I had forgot about Allen, but you are correct there were 2 whole players that were here before Army got named GM. 2.

Guess it's zero players on the roster from the previous regime is the only way it counts. Shame no GM has ever actually helped his team win a Cup. Lot of fired ones did though.

[TheJackBurton]

So just to review. No GM who wins a Cup within at least the first 9 years of their tenure deserves the credit because no matter how many moves they make, they could only have done so with the pieces left behind by the previous GM.

Review my first post.

Ok no more than half the credit.

How many years into the tenure does the Cup need to be for the existing GM to earn 75%?

I only speak to the Blues org. And I am 100% confident saying Army built on the extremely strong foundation that was already in place. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves credit for the dramatic fall.

It would not make sense for this not to apply to all teams. Every GM who has won inherits what they inherit and builds from there.

So when would we have needed to win that first Cup for Army to get 75? 2025? Would 15 years have been enough?

No I would not apply this logic to Steen as Army has left him a lackluster foundation.

So what year then?

And someone said the Cup roster had one guy brought in before Army took over. I can think of two but that doesn't change things much. If we hadn't still had Perron and Allen, would that have helped?

Keep in mind, I'm not even trying to get to full credit. Just 75%. 9 years and 2 leftover players only gets you 50%.

I was thinking about Petro and then forgot to type his name. Good lord.

Tank, Schwartz, Petro. The excess of resources which gave you the young talent and cap room for Army to acquire JBo, Schenn, ROR.

Army's great at making moves when he has resources and cap at his disposal. But he Doug himself into a hole post cup and it's getting deeper. The contracts he gave out, took away roster flexibility as well as his greatest strength.

Tarasenko and Schwartz were Army picks. Jarmo made them, but it was while Army was the defacto GM. It was Pleau's last year as GM, but he was basically nothing more than a consultant.

This has been covered several times.

[Chubbs0910]

So just to review. No GM who wins a Cup within at least the first 9 years of their tenure deserves the credit because no matter how many moves they make, they could only have done so with the pieces left behind by the previous GM.

Review my first post.

Ok no more than half the credit.

How many years into the tenure does the Cup need to be for the existing GM to earn 75%?

I only speak to the Blues org. And I am 100% confident saying Army built on the extremely strong foundation that was already in place. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves credit for the dramatic fall.

It would not make sense for this not to apply to all teams. Every GM who has won inherits what they inherit and builds from there.

So when would we have needed to win that first Cup for Army to get 75? 2025? Would 15 years have been enough?

No I would not apply this logic to Steen as Army has left him a lackluster foundation.

So what year then?

And someone said the Cup roster had one guy brought in before Army took over. I can think of two but that doesn't change things much. If we hadn't still had Perron and Allen, would that have helped?

Keep in mind, I'm not even trying to get to full credit. Just 75%. 9 years and 2 leftover players only gets you 50%.

I was thinking about Petro and then forgot to type his name. Good lord.

Tank, Schwartz, Petro. The excess of resources which gave you the young talent and cap room for Army to acquire JBo, Schenn, ROR.

Army's great at making moves when he has resources and cap at his disposal. But he Doug himself into a hole post cup and it's getting deeper. The contracts he gave out, took away roster flexibility as well as his greatest strength.

Tarasenko and Schwartz were Army picks. Jarmo made them, but it was while Army was the defacto GM. It was Pleau's last year as GM, but he was basically nothing more than a consultant.

This has been covered several times.

You contradict yourself in defense of your hero, as usual.

[sdaltons]

Lol bomac was the only other poster I've seen on here who tried to make that stupid argument.

[netboy65]

Lol bomac was the only other poster I've seen on here who tried to make that stupid argument.

Right! Army “lucked” into a Cup was his standard line

[TheJackBurton]

So just to review. No GM who wins a Cup within at least the first 9 years of their tenure deserves the credit because no matter how many moves they make, they could only have done so with the pieces left behind by the previous GM.

Review my first post.

Ok no more than half the credit.

How many years into the tenure does the Cup need to be for the existing GM to earn 75%?

I only speak to the Blues org. And I am 100% confident saying Army built on the extremely strong foundation that was already in place. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves credit for the dramatic fall.

It would not make sense for this not to apply to all teams. Every GM who has won inherits what they inherit and builds from there.

So when would we have needed to win that first Cup for Army to get 75? 2025? Would 15 years have been enough?

No I would not apply this logic to Steen as Army has left him a lackluster foundation.

So what year then?

And someone said the Cup roster had one guy brought in before Army took over. I can think of two but that doesn't change things much. If we hadn't still had Perron and Allen, would that have helped?

Keep in mind, I'm not even trying to get to full credit. Just 75%. 9 years and 2 leftover players only gets you 50%.

I was thinking about Petro and then forgot to type his name. Good lord.

Tank, Schwartz, Petro. The excess of resources which gave you the young talent and cap room for Army to acquire JBo, Schenn, ROR.

Army's great at making moves when he has resources and cap at his disposal. But he Doug himself into a hole post cup and it's getting deeper. The contracts he gave out, took away roster flexibility as well as his greatest strength.

Tarasenko and Schwartz were Army picks. Jarmo made them, but it was while Army was the defacto GM. It was Pleau's last year as GM, but he was basically nothing more than a consultant.

This has been covered several times.

You contradict yourself in defense of your hero, as usual.

How am I contradicting myself?

Jarmo physically made the picks, but Army made the trade of Runblad to Ottawa for the 16th overall and gave the OK to draft Tarasenko.

Again this has been covered ad nauseum.

[callitwhatyouwant]

Cam Fowler is a +5 and 13 points in 23 games. This is hardly a waste. Do you really think exchanging our 4th for their 2nd, is going to impact anything that has to do with this team? That 2nd round pick wouldn't be ready until 29-31 depending. And by that time Kyrou and Thomas will be aging.

Fowler is playing a good brand of hockey, and I have to believe is having a positive impact on guys like Tucker on how to play.

[britishblue]

Outside of the obvious troll posts, its widely accepted that Army did a great job turning an up and coming "potential" roster in to one of the better teams of the 2010's. He wasnt perfect by any means but you really cant argue with what he achieved.

There were concerns about what happened to his Dallas team post cup, and those concerns are valid based on where we are now.

Army has shown what he can't do is move from core 1 to core 2.

Im firmly of the opinion JayBo was the issue he has, until this season, been unable to fix. However now there are so many other issues fixing it becomes a irrelevant.

Handing the team over to Thomas and Kyrou (which is what happened when he extended both to those deals) was also a mistake, or at least misjudged. He didnt even go all in, he made Schenn captain post O'Reilly, Schenn was only going to get worse, and we had by that point nailed ourselves to the Thomas/Kyrou mast.

Fowler is a good player, and we are better for having him on the Blues. The cost was minimal, and I do agree at least trying to be competetive is better than tanking, which is by no means a sure way of being better in x years.

[Mikekbleedblue]

Fowler 10 times better than Faulk especially in the D zone.

[DawgDad]

Fowler 10 times better than Faulk especially in the D zone.

That's a curious comment. Fowler doesn't compete with Faulk for playing time.

[callitwhatyouwant]

Outside of the obvious troll posts, its widely accepted that Army did a great job turning an up and coming "potential" roster in to one of the better teams of the 2010's. He wasnt perfect by any means but you really cant argue with what he achieved.

There were concerns about what happened to his Dallas team post cup, and those concerns are valid based on where we are now.

Army has shown what he can't do is move from core 1 to core 2.

Im firmly of the opinion JayBo was the issue he has, until this season, been unable to fix. However now there are so many other issues fixing it becomes a irrelevant.

Handing the team over to Thomas and Kyrou (which is what happened when he extended both to those deals) was also a mistake, or at least misjudged. He didnt even go all in, he made Schenn captain post O'Reilly, Schenn was only going to get worse, and we had by that point nailed ourselves to the Thomas/Kyrou mast.

Fowler is a good player, and we are better for having him on the Blues. The cost was minimal, and I do agree at least trying to be competetive is better than tanking, which is by no means a sure way of being better in x years.

The Kyrou Thomas thing will continue to be a lightning rod moment until we make the playoffs during their contract. It seemed the team was OK with Thomas getting his money. All of the locker room talk came after Kyrou got his. And it wasn't until those players were traded and the new guys got a chance to breathe did the team apparently starting "vibing" again. That being said, the locker room according to Fowler and Holloway seems to be in good shape. That could have waned over these last couple weeks cause they hadn't had the troubles they are now. But until the Blues get to the playoffs, that moment in time might prove to be the worst extensions (even tho those guys were going to get that money) in Blues history. It caused a major rift between guys who were on their last contracts and guys who hadn't proven to lead a team yet.

The real question will be these few games before 4 nations and the 5-8 games after. You will know if this team cares about each other or not by the end of those.

[sdaltons]

I told most of you fools what a stupid move it was to waste future assets on Fowler. Ever since that 1000th game ceremony
he has been terrible, and he hasn't prevented the Blues from falling hopelessly out of the playoff picture.

So tell me, do you regret it now? Army should.

Yeah terrible trade