What are we hoping to accomplish in the Playoffs?

[LGB73]

My hope on what we can accomplishments is:

1) Win some games.
2) Win a series.
3) Win two series.
4) Win 3 series.
5) Win 4 series.


Realistically I think 1 might be all they can do but that's why you play the games. I want to see who raises and expands their game over what they typically do. Like to see Hofer get a game or two.

[Harry York 37]

This thread is just bait.

Smelly Diapers is just trying to belittle the Blues again. Its what he does. He doesn't think they are good. So the Blues lost game 1 after dominating for 2 periods. They just needed a better 3rd period. Blues win game 2.

Whenever trolls can no longer deny that the team he compulsively trolls has achieved sustained moments of great success, they squirm to keep an audience with insincere threads like this one.
His "either or" propositions are so far removed from reality as to render him idiotic... like the others.

"For the Good of the Board" ...again
Rinse.
Lather.
Repeat.

You broke your promise.
GTFO

[Hooking]

It's funny that people believe that teams should "tank" or not play as good on purpose to get a higher pick.

Doug to the team: "Hey guys, I know your ENTIRE lifestyle and pay is based on your performance but can we tone it down a bit? It would really help the owners and me if this team could suck for a while so we can get better... maybe... in like a few years or longer. So um, yeah, can you all sacrifice your talents and probably get less pay for your next contract and please just suck for the rest of the season or if you are here for a while suck for a few seasons in a row? To make up for what you would lose in $ for your next contract um we will give you guys some free hot dogs and stuff. Sound good?"

[Harry S Deals]

It's funny that people believe that teams should "tank" or not play as good on purpose to get a higher pick.

Doug to the team: "Hey guys, I know your ENTIRE lifestyle and pay is based on your performance but can we tone it down a bit? It would really help the owners and me if this team could suck for a while so we can get better... maybe... in like a few years or longer. So um, yeah, can you all sacrifice your talents and probably get less pay for your next contract and please just suck for the rest of the season or if you are here for a while suck for a few seasons in a row? To make up for what you would lose in $ for your next contract um we will give you guys some free hot dogs and stuff. Sound good?"

But the Blues have consistently drafted Top 10 quality prospects and now we see the results so i still dont get the gist of the arguement.

[a smell of green grass]

It's funny that people believe that teams should "tank" or not play as good on purpose to get a higher pick.

I've never thought or said this.

My objection is with picking up Fowler and Suter and Faksa instead of playing our young prospects. I'm not against adding veterans. I'm against adding veterans who have no chance of being part of the Cup solution.

[TheJackBurton]

but the answer to your question is that 1, 2 and 3 are all real and outweigh your approach

I think the rudeness stems from the frustration of the topic not moving anywhere.

I think my approach outweighs 1,2,3 because I know that we don't have the secret sauce yet, and the only way to get it is via the draft. As I've said before, however, I'm glad to see that some think so highly of our roster and prospect pool etc. I hope that I'm wrong.

My frankness (not rudeness) stems from the frustration of watching other cities get phenomenal superstar talent, while I don't. Maybe I retaliate too nasty, so maybe I'm related to Bolduc way back.

No it isn't and there have been hundreds of examples given to you but you just continue to ignore them.

Jack Eichel is a Las Vegas Knight.

He was not drafted by Las Vegas.

If he wasn't drafted by Las Vegas how in the world did they ever acquire him?

[Harry S Deals]

but the answer to your question is that 1, 2 and 3 are all real and outweigh your approach

I think the rudeness stems from the frustration of the topic not moving anywhere.

I think my approach outweighs 1,2,3 because I know that we don't have the secret sauce yet, and the only way to get it is via the draft. As I've said before, however, I'm glad to see that some think so highly of our roster and prospect pool etc. I hope that I'm wrong.

My frankness (not rudeness) stems from the frustration of watching other cities get phenomenal superstar talent, while I don't. Maybe I retaliate too nasty, so maybe I'm related to Bolduc way back.

No it isn't and there have been hundreds of examples given to you but you just continue to ignore them.

Jack Eichel is a Las Vegas Knight.

He was not drafted by Las Vegas.

If he wasn't drafted by Las Vegas how in the world did they ever acquire him?

The Blues have drafted a star center in Thomas and a slew of really good forwards not sure how it can get any better

[Sophisticated Shoes]

The goal for these playoffs is to trade Schenn! Remember, Army is a so-called 'idiot'. Not as high a priority, is to get our young players playoff experience so they have a taste of the pressure and speed of the game as this team becomes deeper and more mature.
Now, let's see a good response tonight after the tough loss in game 1.

[seattleblue]

I would just caution ... the argument that the only way to get a top 5 pick or elite talent is defeated by the trades for Bouwmeester (3d overall), Schenn (5th overall), ROR (Selke/Conn caliber NHL player) and Tarasenko (acquired with pick value of 17 previous year being traded for 16 current year).

So therefore I don't see the need to argue something that deserves pushback which is that "because the Blues have been maximizing their draft position, picking in the 20s = top 10 picks." I don't agree with that.

But it's also not necessary to sustain the correct side of the argument IMO which is that 1) first of all the question is dissatisfyingly hypothetical and it is moot since they aren't doing this regardless; and 2) even if you could win a correct argument that top 10 picks > picks in the 20s (which they obviously are please don't get so caught up in defeating a foe that you believe they're the same because the Blues are such special, elite curators), given where they are in their developing cycle it is just undeniable the momentum is headed forward not back, and in that circumstance you accept what's real and you work with it.

[BrummerStealsHome]

Win.

/thread

I don't understand why this is even a question.

[a smell of green grass]

but the answer to your question is that 1, 2 and 3 are all real and outweigh your approach

I think the rudeness stems from the frustration of the topic not moving anywhere.

I think my approach outweighs 1,2,3 because I know that we don't have the secret sauce yet, and the only way to get it is via the draft. As I've said before, however, I'm glad to see that some think so highly of our roster and prospect pool etc. I hope that I'm wrong.

My frankness (not rudeness) stems from the frustration of watching other cities get phenomenal superstar talent, while I don't. Maybe I retaliate too nasty, so maybe I'm related to Bolduc way back.

No it isn't and there have been hundreds of examples given to you but you just continue to ignore them.

Jack Eichel is a Las Vegas Knight.

He was not drafted by Las Vegas.

If he wasn't drafted by Las Vegas how in the world did they ever acquire him?

I get your point. I think it will be about 5 years before you understand me. Some people are slow skaters.

[somni]

but the answer to your question is that 1, 2 and 3 are all real and outweigh your approach

I think the rudeness stems from the frustration of the topic not moving anywhere.

I think my approach outweighs 1,2,3 because I know that we don't have the secret sauce yet, and the only way to get it is via the draft. As I've said before, however, I'm glad to see that some think so highly of our roster and prospect pool etc. I hope that I'm wrong.

My frankness (not rudeness) stems from the frustration of watching other cities get phenomenal superstar talent, while I don't. Maybe I retaliate too nasty, so maybe I'm related to Bolduc way back.

No it isn't and there have been hundreds of examples given to you but you just continue to ignore them.

Jack Eichel is a Las Vegas Knight.

He was not drafted by Las Vegas.

If he wasn't drafted by Las Vegas how in the world did they ever acquire him?

The Blues have drafted a star center in Thomas and a slew of really good forwards not sure how it can get any better

And to note. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that the Blues develop players fairly well and better than Buffalo and others. Part of that reason is that they aren't forced to throw them in the fire and let them develop at the right pace.

[Harry S Deals]

I would just caution ... the argument that the only way to get a top 5 pick or elite talent is defeated by the trades for Bouwmeester (3d overall), Schenn (5th overall), ROR (Selke/Conn caliber NHL player) and Tarasenko (acquired with pick value of 17 previous year being traded for 16 current year).

So therefore I don't see the need to argue something that deserves pushback which is that "because the Blues have been maximizing their draft position, picking in the 20s = top 10 picks." I don't agree with that.

But it's also not necessary to sustain the correct side of the argument IMO which is that 1) first of all the question is dissatisfyingly hypothetical and it is moot since they aren't doing this regardless; and 2) even if you could win a correct argument that top 10 picks > picks in the 20s (which they obviously are please don't get so caught up in defeating a foe that you believe they're the same because the Blues are such special, elite curators), given where they are in their developing cycle it is just undeniable the momentum is headed forward not back, and in that circumstance you accept what's real and you work with it.

Does it really matter where you pick in this circumstance, 20ish or Top 10? It doesn't matter because the Blues have cultivated mid to late 1st round picks into Top 10 talent as shown by the prospect production versus their peers in the their draft class. Robert Thomas (396 pts) is right their with Pettersson (457 pts)and Hischier (422 pts). Hischier at #1 overall has 61 more GP and only 26 more pts than Thomas. So what are we even talking about?
Are we saying you literally have to draft only 1-5 overall to have a contending franchise? Thats dumb i just disproved that. In fact speak with anh NHL scout, its mostly about what you do with the kid, post draft. Not all amateur departments are the same as far as development goes.

[seattleblue]

I would just caution ... the argument that the only way to get a top 5 pick or elite talent is defeated by the trades for Bouwmeester (3d overall), Schenn (5th overall), ROR (Selke/Conn caliber NHL player) and Tarasenko (acquired with pick value of 17 previous year being traded for 16 current year).

So therefore I don't see the need to argue something that deserves pushback which is that "because the Blues have been maximizing their draft position, picking in the 20s = top 10 picks." I don't agree with that.

But it's also not necessary to sustain the correct side of the argument IMO which is that 1) first of all the question is dissatisfyingly hypothetical and it is moot since they aren't doing this regardless; and 2) even if you could win a correct argument that top 10 picks > picks in the 20s (which they obviously are please don't get so caught up in defeating a foe that you believe they're the same because the Blues are such special, elite curators), given where they are in their developing cycle it is just undeniable the momentum is headed forward not back, and in that circumstance you accept what's real and you work with it.

Does it really matter where you pick in this circumstance, 20ish or Top 10? It doesn't matter because the Blues have cultivated mid to late 1st round picks into Top 10 talent as shown by the prospect production versus their peers in the their draft class. Robert Thomas (396 pts) is right their with Pettersson (457 pts)and Hischier (422 pts). Hischier at #1 overall has 61 more GP and only 26 more pts than Thomas. So what are we even talking about?
Are we saying you literally have to draft only 1-5 overall to have a contending franchise? Thats dumb i just disproved that. In fact speak with anh NHL scout, its mostly about what you do with the kid, post draft. Not all amateur departments are the same as far as development goes.

I don't know how you came up with "Are we saying you literally have to draft only 1-5 overall to have a contending franchise?" as what I just said.

Maybe someone else can walk you through it?

[Harry S Deals]

I would just caution ... the argument that the only way to get a top 5 pick or elite talent is defeated by the trades for Bouwmeester (3d overall), Schenn (5th overall), ROR (Selke/Conn caliber NHL player) and Tarasenko (acquired with pick value of 17 previous year being traded for 16 current year).

So therefore I don't see the need to argue something that deserves pushback which is that "because the Blues have been maximizing their draft position, picking in the 20s = top 10 picks." I don't agree with that.

But it's also not necessary to sustain the correct side of the argument IMO which is that 1) first of all the question is dissatisfyingly hypothetical and it is moot since they aren't doing this regardless; and 2) even if you could win a correct argument that top 10 picks > picks in the 20s (which they obviously are please don't get so caught up in defeating a foe that you believe they're the same because the Blues are such special, elite curators), given where they are in their developing cycle it is just undeniable the momentum is headed forward not back, and in that circumstance you accept what's real and you work with it.

Does it really matter where you pick in this circumstance, 20ish or Top 10? It doesn't matter because the Blues have cultivated mid to late 1st round picks into Top 10 talent as shown by the prospect production versus their peers in the their draft class. Robert Thomas (396 pts) is right their with Pettersson (457 pts)and Hischier (422 pts). Hischier at #1 overall has 61 more GP and only 26 more pts than Thomas. So what are we even talking about?
Are we saying you literally have to draft only 1-5 overall to have a contending franchise? Thats dumb i just disproved that. In fact speak with anh NHL scout, its mostly about what you do with the kid, post draft. Not all amateur departments are the same as far as development goes.

I don't know how you came up with "Are we saying you literally have to draft only 1-5 overall to have a contending franchise?" as what I just said.

Maybe someone else can walk you through it?

Isnt that the entire premise of this persons post?

[seattleblue]

I would just caution ... the argument that the only way to get a top 5 pick or elite talent is defeated by the trades for Bouwmeester (3d overall), Schenn (5th overall), ROR (Selke/Conn caliber NHL player) and Tarasenko (acquired with pick value of 17 previous year being traded for 16 current year).

So therefore I don't see the need to argue something that deserves pushback which is that "because the Blues have been maximizing their draft position, picking in the 20s = top 10 picks." I don't agree with that.

But it's also not necessary to sustain the correct side of the argument IMO which is that 1) first of all the question is dissatisfyingly hypothetical and it is moot since they aren't doing this regardless; and 2) even if you could win a correct argument that top 10 picks > picks in the 20s (which they obviously are please don't get so caught up in defeating a foe that you believe they're the same because the Blues are such special, elite curators), given where they are in their developing cycle it is just undeniable the momentum is headed forward not back, and in that circumstance you accept what's real and you work with it.

Does it really matter where you pick in this circumstance, 20ish or Top 10? It doesn't matter because the Blues have cultivated mid to late 1st round picks into Top 10 talent as shown by the prospect production versus their peers in the their draft class. Robert Thomas (396 pts) is right their with Pettersson (457 pts)and Hischier (422 pts). Hischier at #1 overall has 61 more GP and only 26 more pts than Thomas. So what are we even talking about?
Are we saying you literally have to draft only 1-5 overall to have a contending franchise? Thats dumb i just disproved that. In fact speak with anh NHL scout, its mostly about what you do with the kid, post draft. Not all amateur departments are the same as far as development goes.

I don't know how you came up with "Are we saying you literally have to draft only 1-5 overall to have a contending franchise?" as what I just said.

Maybe someone else can walk you through it?

Isnt that the entire premise of this persons post?

I think what's happening might be due to the quote function it looks like people are disagreeing with me instead of agreeing with me and disagreeing with the person I was responding to? I am making the argument that you don't need to pretend Blues picking at 20 = Blues picking top 10 in order to defeat the OP's argument. His main single point of focus seems to be the "only way" to do something. I disagree with that, while 100% agreeing to the concept of the draft asymptote he is pointing to. I am saying that people trying to say "besides, pick 20 = pick 10 when it's the Blues, look at history" is a bad argument and it's got serious logical flaws.

I am saying why reach for a bad argument when there is so obviously a good argument that it's not the only way. And also it's the only way that matters because I think we can all see they are not going to just start selling off pieces to tank. So even if it's what you would have wanted you better start thinking more about how to get an impact addition like Eichel or Bouwmeester via trade instead of a top 5 pick.