What are we hoping to accomplish in the Playoffs?

[a smell of green grass]

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.

Hmmm. Ok, I'll try the trade route.

Let's trade Krug, Suter, and Texier for Demidov. They are getting 3 players for 1, so we get Demidov!!!!

Did I do that right? Can you suggest a better trade?

[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.

Hmmm. Ok, I'll try the trade route.

Let's trade Krug, Suter, and Texier for Demidov. They are getting 3 players for 1, so we get Demidov!!!!

Did I do that right? Can you suggest a better trade?

i believe I can because these were the templates for getting the four impact players who you also have cited by saying "where are we going to get them from?"

Bouwmeester for the 22d overall pick and two B/C prospects who busted.
ROR for Sobotka, Berglund, a former 26th overall pick who at the time did not look like a blue chip prospect, also a late first in the 20s that became #31
Tarasenko for the prior year's 17th overall pick
Schenn and a major cap dump (Lehtera) for two mid firsts (Frost & Farabee)

Now I'll turn it on you. Can you explain why you don't think the Blues have the assets to make those kind of trades? They pretty clearly do. There are numerous prospects and very possibly/probably not enough spots for them, but they are viable talent that could go in exactly these type of trades. That's a legit perspective because we've seen it before. What do you think of that argument?

[STL fan in MN]

a top 5 draft picks gets you a really solid chance to get a good player

However, i can think of two organizations right now that have multiple of them in their lineup and are sitting on the sidelines still trying to get back into the big dance. So, a big prospect can help you get further, but it doesn't get you a guaranteed playoff team either.

I still think if we had failed to make the playoffs, at best we're picking 8th or 9th. Top 7 would've required us to lose 12 in a row rather than win 12 in a row. So the real question isn't "would you rather a top 5 pick" it's "would you rather a top 10 pick or a playoff birth?". I'd rather lose the 8-10 picks and have a chance to make some noise. if we had a legit chance at a top pick maybe i'd think differently.

The fork in the road was much sooner!

Where would the Blues be right now in draft position if they had played their prospects instead of Fowler, Faksa, and Suter for the whole year?

The options as I see it
1) prop up the team with older players that have no chance to be on a cup run with you, but make the playoffs

2) miss the playoffs and select the next Ovechkin

Id rather have an Ovechkin for 20 years than 10 alternating sets of Fowlers and Faksas.

Option 2 sounds good but there’s no Ovechkin available this year…or almost any year for that matter..

Ok. Let's grab the next Brandon Saad instead because he is sure to be available. Let's give him a NTC that we have not intention of honoring, and let's grossly overpay him for results, let's give him a contract 2 years beyond his usefulness date, and then finally let's trade him away to get back some of the money that we should have never promised to begin with.

As disappointing as a TOP5 can be, bringing in the wrong veteran can be way more costly and detrimental to results, and Army has already shown an ugly tendency for getting those picks wrong.

Pick your poison... The wrong TOP 5. The wrong Saad or Krug.

This pivot to discussing Saad seems to have pretty much nothing to do with your main argument but even this argument doesn’t really make any sense to me.

I don’t see signing Saad as a mistake at all. We signed him as a UFA so gave up no assets to acquire him. We paid him $4.5M/year which was very fair value for a middle-6 winger with UFA bargaining power. He then did precisely what the Blues signed him for - putting up about a half a point per game for a few years. Then he trailed off a bit this year and we were able to jettison him for absolutely no cost. The only thing he “cost” was the opportunity cost of him playing for the Blues instead of someone else. I assume you think that someone else should’ve been a prospect of some kind? What prospect was NHL ready to be a 2nd to 3rd line RWer starting in the 2021-22 season?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with these sorts of vet signings to fill out your roster. You need a good balanced mix of youth and experience. Vets and hungry youngsters.

[seattleblue]

Also with Saad, he was hard matched against the MacKinnon-Makar unit in the 2022 playoffs and he was a rock defensively, a real asset. Shipping him out this year was the right move and it seemed to get this current team's attention but he did contribute yesterday for Vegas so he's still a viable player. Just not with us

[TheJackBurton]

Once in the goal is to win.

Always. Don’t want the Blues organization to become like the Cardinals, where winning quit being the goal under Mozeliak.

Yep, the goal simply became "Just get in and we'll see what happens"

No that's just an awful strategy. Build your team to win and then let the chips fall where they may.

[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?

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.

But in the case of the players i have listed "pick 20 absolutely = pick 10" based on the data. Its not an argument really. Aside from Bokk and maybe others i cant recall in the past the Blues picks have every time outperformed their draft position making the argument that its better to tank and draft high mute. Sure perhaps you have a better shot at a quality player at #10 then you do at #20 thats of course easily shown. In this case with the Blues stable of young players currently on the roster they are overwhelmingly performing as though they were picked top 10 in their class.
As you said in no way was this team tanking. Had the Blues not caught fire they wouldnt have even traded Schenn because had they asked he wouldnt have waive his clause. To tank requires a few years of absolute trash asset management and a prolonged funk. It is not going to happen here the Blues want to win games.

[seattleblue]

But in the case of the players i have listed "pick 20 absolutely = pick 10" based on the data. Its not an argument really.

Sure perhaps you have a better shot at a quality player at #10 then you do at #20 thats of course easily shown.

These two things you're saying are in actual contradiction, so I agree with half of you. I fully agree with the second one and totally disagree with the first one.

[Harry S Deals]

But in the case of the players i have listed "pick 20 absolutely = pick 10" based on the data. Its not an argument really.

Sure perhaps you have a better shot at a quality player at #10 then you do at #20 thats of course easily shown.

These two things you're saying are in actual contradiction, so I agree with half of you. I fully agree with the second one and totally disagree with the first one.

Hmmm:

Hofer 2018 3rd in Wins, 2nd in Save Pct,
Thomas 2017 4th in PTS,
Kyrou 2016 8th in Goals,
Neighbours 2020 8th in Goals
Bolduc 2021 10th in Goals

[a smell of green grass]

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.

Hmmm. Ok, I'll try the trade route.

Let's trade Krug, Suter, and Texier for Demidov. They are getting 3 players for 1, so we get Demidov!!!!

Did I do that right? Can you suggest a better trade?

i believe I can because these were the templates for getting the four impact players who you also have cited by saying "where are we going to get them from?"

Bouwmeester for the 22d overall pick and two B/C prospects who busted.
ROR for Sobotka, Berglund, a former 26th overall pick who at the time did not look like a blue chip prospect, also a late first in the 20s that became #31
Tarasenko for the prior year's 17th overall pick
Schenn and a major cap dump (Lehtera) for two mid firsts (Frost & Farabee)

Now I'll turn it on you. Can you explain why you don't think the Blues have the assets to make those kind of trades? They pretty clearly do. There are numerous prospects and very possibly/probably not enough spots for them, but they are viable talent that could go in exactly these type of trades. That's a legit perspective because we've seen it before. What do you think of that argument?

Ok. I appreciate the clarity on how you foresee a sunny outcome.

I'll make a mental note to see if that is ultimately how this plays out.

I'll go out now to buy my jersey with "Trade bait" on the back. That player is going to be around longer than anybody else.

[seattleblue]

But in the case of the players i have listed "pick 20 absolutely = pick 10" based on the data. Its not an argument really.

Sure perhaps you have a better shot at a quality player at #10 then you do at #20 thats of course easily shown.

These two things you're saying are in actual contradiction, so I agree with half of you. I fully agree with the second one and totally disagree with the first one.

Hmmm:

Hofer 2018 3rd in Wins, 2nd in Save Pct,
Thomas 2017 4th in PTS,
Kyrou 2016 8th in Goals,
Neighbours 2020 8th in Goals
Bolduc 2021 10th in Goals

Again I'm agreeing with the part of you that understands that if the scouting department is equally talented across the two possibilities, then it's better to have the higher picks. You refer to data but the data is unequivocal. It's an asymptotic graph, the Blues' scouting department is good but they aren't wizards.

to me it is obvious that it's better to get good toolsmiths the best possible tools to work with, not to say: in the hands of good toolsmiths all tools are equal

[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.

Hmmm. Ok, I'll try the trade route.

Let's trade Krug, Suter, and Texier for Demidov. They are getting 3 players for 1, so we get Demidov!!!!

Did I do that right? Can you suggest a better trade?

i believe I can because these were the templates for getting the four impact players who you also have cited by saying "where are we going to get them from?"

Bouwmeester for the 22d overall pick and two B/C prospects who busted.
ROR for Sobotka, Berglund, a former 26th overall pick who at the time did not look like a blue chip prospect, also a late first in the 20s that became #31
Tarasenko for the prior year's 17th overall pick
Schenn and a major cap dump (Lehtera) for two mid firsts (Frost & Farabee)

Now I'll turn it on you. Can you explain why you don't think the Blues have the assets to make those kind of trades? They pretty clearly do. There are numerous prospects and very possibly/probably not enough spots for them, but they are viable talent that could go in exactly these type of trades. That's a legit perspective because we've seen it before. What do you think of that argument?

Ok. I appreciate the clarity on how you foresee a sunny outcome.

I'll make a mental note to see if that is ultimately how this plays out.

I'll go out now to buy my jersey with "Trade bait" on the back. That player is going to be around longer than anybody else.

No problem I have no problem with accountability if I'm wrong. I am saying they have the assets to do similar work to previous work that got players a different way than tanking. They might not but I have more confidence in Armstrong there. Not sure how it will play out with Steen, we'll see soon. They are coming into a time when he will make more moves like the ones mentioned.

On the jersey front, I have a Pronger, a Demitra, a Pietrangelo, a Tarasenko, an Oshie and a Parayko. A signed Binnington 2019 white 50 and a Team Canada Binnington 50. The whole thing with jerseys is they don't even have to be current players!

[a smell of green grass]

a top 5 draft picks gets you a really solid chance to get a good player

However, i can think of two organizations right now that have multiple of them in their lineup and are sitting on the sidelines still trying to get back into the big dance. So, a big prospect can help you get further, but it doesn't get you a guaranteed playoff team either.

I still think if we had failed to make the playoffs, at best we're picking 8th or 9th. Top 7 would've required us to lose 12 in a row rather than win 12 in a row. So the real question isn't "would you rather a top 5 pick" it's "would you rather a top 10 pick or a playoff birth?". I'd rather lose the 8-10 picks and have a chance to make some noise. if we had a legit chance at a top pick maybe i'd think differently.

The fork in the road was much sooner!

Where would the Blues be right now in draft position if they had played their prospects instead of Fowler, Faksa, and Suter for the whole year?

The options as I see it
1) prop up the team with older players that have no chance to be on a cup run with you, but make the playoffs

2) miss the playoffs and select the next Ovechkin

Id rather have an Ovechkin for 20 years than 10 alternating sets of Fowlers and Faksas.

Option 2 sounds good but there’s no Ovechkin available this year…or almost any year for that matter..

Ok. Let's grab the next Brandon Saad instead because he is sure to be available. Let's give him a NTC that we have not intention of honoring, and let's grossly overpay him for results, let's give him a contract 2 years beyond his usefulness date, and then finally let's trade him away to get back some of the money that we should have never promised to begin with.

As disappointing as a TOP5 can be, bringing in the wrong veteran can be way more costly and detrimental to results, and Army has already shown an ugly tendency for getting those picks wrong.

Pick your poison... The wrong TOP 5. The wrong Saad or Krug.

This pivot to discussing Saad seems to have pretty much nothing to do with your main argument but even this argument doesn’t really make any sense to me.

I don’t see signing Saad as a mistake at all. We signed him as a UFA so gave up no assets to acquire him. We paid him $4.5M/year which was very fair value for a middle-6 winger with UFA bargaining power. He then did precisely what the Blues signed him for - putting up about a half a point per game for a few years. Then he trailed off a bit this year and we were able to jettison him for absolutely no cost. The only thing he “cost” was the opportunity cost of him playing for the Blues instead of someone else. I assume you think that someone else should’ve been a prospect of some kind? What prospect was NHL ready to be a 2nd to 3rd line RWer starting in the 2021-22 season?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with these sorts of vet signings to fill out your roster. You need a good balanced mix of youth and experience. Vets and hungry youngsters.

I agree with and understand all that you say here.

Do you agree with these statements?

- Having a TOP 5 does not guarantee an Ovechkin

- Signing a VET to fill a hole does not guarantee that the hole is filled.

- Army has never had a TOP 5 pick, and we have no idea what would have happened if he tried.

- Army has signed many VETS to bloated NTC contracts that are now extremely difficult to crawl out from under.

- Signing the wrong VET is more damaging to the team chemistry and salary cap than signing the wrong draft pick in the TOP 5.

[a smell of green grass]

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.

Hmmm. Ok, I'll try the trade route.

Let's trade Krug, Suter, and Texier for Demidov. They are getting 3 players for 1, so we get Demidov!!!!

Did I do that right? Can you suggest a better trade?

i believe I can because these were the templates for getting the four impact players who you also have cited by saying "where are we going to get them from?"

Bouwmeester for the 22d overall pick and two B/C prospects who busted.
ROR for Sobotka, Berglund, a former 26th overall pick who at the time did not look like a blue chip prospect, also a late first in the 20s that became #31
Tarasenko for the prior year's 17th overall pick
Schenn and a major cap dump (Lehtera) for two mid firsts (Frost & Farabee)

Now I'll turn it on you. Can you explain why you don't think the Blues have the assets to make those kind of trades? They pretty clearly do. There are numerous prospects and very possibly/probably not enough spots for them, but they are viable talent that could go in exactly these type of trades. That's a legit perspective because we've seen it before. What do you think of that argument?

Ok. I appreciate the clarity on how you foresee a sunny outcome.

I'll make a mental note to see if that is ultimately how this plays out.

I'll go out now to buy my jersey with "Trade bait" on the back. That player is going to be around longer than anybody else.

No problem I have no problem with accountability if I'm wrong. I am saying they have the assets to do similar work to previous work that got players a different way than tanking. They might not but I have more confidence in Armstrong there. Not sure how it will play out with Steen, we'll see soon. They are coming into a time when he will make more moves like the ones mentioned.

On the jersey front, I have a Pronger, a Demitra, a Pietrangelo, a Tarasenko, an Oshie and a Parayko. A signed Binnington 2019 white 50 and a Team Canada Binnington 50. The whole thing with jerseys is they don't even have to be current players!

Yep. All kidding aside, I understand what you are saying. I'm not looking for a scapegoat. We are all in the same boat. If your boat sinks, they so does mine. I want my own Demidov. That's want I want. That and his name on a Blues jersey.

[seattleblue]

We are all in the same boat. If your boat sinks, they so does mine.

There it is. That's why I'm trying to channel Jules so I can get Vincent Vega to not shoot Ringo "on general principle." Having already walked the earth like Caine in Kung-Fu, only with a shortwave radio one of the years because my team traded for Gretzky, I know my previous code has some flaws and I am tryin real hard to be the shepherd. And it's because I believe that in the near future there's going to be a premium on real people who organically share your interests. Shooting at Ringo and Hunny Bunny on general principle just gets holes in your own boat.

[STL fan in MN]

a top 5 draft picks gets you a really solid chance to get a good player

However, i can think of two organizations right now that have multiple of them in their lineup and are sitting on the sidelines still trying to get back into the big dance. So, a big prospect can help you get further, but it doesn't get you a guaranteed playoff team either.

I still think if we had failed to make the playoffs, at best we're picking 8th or 9th. Top 7 would've required us to lose 12 in a row rather than win 12 in a row. So the real question isn't "would you rather a top 5 pick" it's "would you rather a top 10 pick or a playoff birth?". I'd rather lose the 8-10 picks and have a chance to make some noise. if we had a legit chance at a top pick maybe i'd think differently.

The fork in the road was much sooner!

Where would the Blues be right now in draft position if they had played their prospects instead of Fowler, Faksa, and Suter for the whole year?

The options as I see it
1) prop up the team with older players that have no chance to be on a cup run with you, but make the playoffs

2) miss the playoffs and select the next Ovechkin

Id rather have an Ovechkin for 20 years than 10 alternating sets of Fowlers and Faksas.

Option 2 sounds good but there’s no Ovechkin available this year…or almost any year for that matter..

Ok. Let's grab the next Brandon Saad instead because he is sure to be available. Let's give him a NTC that we have not intention of honoring, and let's grossly overpay him for results, let's give him a contract 2 years beyond his usefulness date, and then finally let's trade him away to get back some of the money that we should have never promised to begin with.

As disappointing as a TOP5 can be, bringing in the wrong veteran can be way more costly and detrimental to results, and Army has already shown an ugly tendency for getting those picks wrong.

Pick your poison... The wrong TOP 5. The wrong Saad or Krug.

This pivot to discussing Saad seems to have pretty much nothing to do with your main argument but even this argument doesn’t really make any sense to me.

I don’t see signing Saad as a mistake at all. We signed him as a UFA so gave up no assets to acquire him. We paid him $4.5M/year which was very fair value for a middle-6 winger with UFA bargaining power. He then did precisely what the Blues signed him for - putting up about a half a point per game for a few years. Then he trailed off a bit this year and we were able to jettison him for absolutely no cost. The only thing he “cost” was the opportunity cost of him playing for the Blues instead of someone else. I assume you think that someone else should’ve been a prospect of some kind? What prospect was NHL ready to be a 2nd to 3rd line RWer starting in the 2021-22 season?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with these sorts of vet signings to fill out your roster. You need a good balanced mix of youth and experience. Vets and hungry youngsters.

I agree with and understand all that you say here.

Do you agree with these statements?

- Having a TOP 5 does not guarantee an Ovechkin

- Signing a VET to fill a hole does not guarantee that the hole is filled.

- Army has never had a TOP 5 pick, and we have no idea what would have happened if he tried.

- Army has signed many VETS to bloated NTC contracts that are now extremely difficult to crawl out from under.

- Signing the wrong VET is more damaging to the team chemistry and salary cap than signing the wrong draft pick in the TOP 5.

Guess I’ll answer these one at a time.

1. Yes, of course.

2. Depends on what hole you’re taking about. If it’s the Ovechkin superstar level hole, most teams never ever fill that role. But a team still has to fill out a 23-man roster every season. If you need a middle-6 winger and someone like Saad is willing to sign with you, why not? Again I ask you, what was the opportunity cost of signing Saad? What prospect got screwed over because the Blues signed Saad? I can’t think of one.

3. True but why do you ask? Army’s highest pick was Dvorsky at 10th overall in 2023 although I’ll note while Army wasn’t officially GM until 2010, he was the GM in waiting in 2008 when they drafted Petro. That said, it seems pretty clear to me that Army takes a relatively hands off approach to the draft. Based on all the behind the scenes videos they’ve released over the years, he seems to mostly leave it up to his scouting director (Jarmo, Bill Armstrong and now Tony Feltrin) and their staffs. Army clearly attends stuff like the U18s and goes to see teenagers play from time to time but the impression I get is it’s more likely to be because the scouting dept is high on a player and Army wants to get a look himself. But he seems like the type of exec that knows he’s not the top expert in the room for all facets of the game and lets the experts do their jobs. His job has been in hiring the right scouts and obviously he’d hire scouts that have a similar drafting/player development philosophy as him. It’s pretty clear to me that the Blues prioritize hockey sense and effort/grit/sticktoitiveness the most. They’ve well outperformed the averages in Army’s tenure based on draft position.

4. What are these bad contracts? To me, the main one is Krug. To me, that day they pivoted from Petro to Krug was Army’s biggest mistake of his career and I think he realizes it. I think that negotiation with Petro got personal and Army’s pride got in the way a bit there. I hated that move from Day 1 and it’s proven to be pretty bad. That move effectively closed the Cup window IMO. And then the flat cap didn’t allow him the room to have the flexibility to remedy it really. So I’m not one to say Army is golden and can do no wrong. I didn’t like a lot of the moves in the 2-3 years since the Cup win. But I’ll have to admit that so far, the Schenn and Parayko extensions have aged better than I expected. And I think Army has been excellent the last couple years. He realized the window was closed and moved on from ROR and Tarasenko and acquired 2 1sts in a deep draft (and other assets). The 2 offer sheets are just golden. No other way to put it. That was an absolute double-heist. I wasn’t a huge fan of the Faulk extension w/o him even playing a game here first but I also don’t view it as an albatross. Faulk could easily be moved if they really wanted to. Probably not for much but he doesn’t have negative value IMO. IMO, he was acquired as insurance in the event Petro didn’t re-sign and to put pressure on Petro. Again, I think that negotiation got needlessly personal…on both sides.

5. There’s virtually no way to sign the wrong top-5 pick as even if they underperform, ELCs are cheap so…that’s a moot point IMO. But sure, acquiring the wrong vets can do damage to the team, usually by taking up more cap space than they’re worth. But you specifically mention team chemistry. What vets have messed up team chemistry??

[TheJackBurton]

a top 5 draft picks gets you a really solid chance to get a good player

However, i can think of two organizations right now that have multiple of them in their lineup and are sitting on the sidelines still trying to get back into the big dance. So, a big prospect can help you get further, but it doesn't get you a guaranteed playoff team either.

I still think if we had failed to make the playoffs, at best we're picking 8th or 9th. Top 7 would've required us to lose 12 in a row rather than win 12 in a row. So the real question isn't "would you rather a top 5 pick" it's "would you rather a top 10 pick or a playoff birth?". I'd rather lose the 8-10 picks and have a chance to make some noise. if we had a legit chance at a top pick maybe i'd think differently.

The fork in the road was much sooner!

Where would the Blues be right now in draft position if they had played their prospects instead of Fowler, Faksa, and Suter for the whole year?

The options as I see it
1) prop up the team with older players that have no chance to be on a cup run with you, but make the playoffs

2) miss the playoffs and select the next Ovechkin

Id rather have an Ovechkin for 20 years than 10 alternating sets of Fowlers and Faksas.

Option 2 sounds good but there’s no Ovechkin available this year…or almost any year for that matter..

Ok. Let's grab the next Brandon Saad instead because he is sure to be available. Let's give him a NTC that we have not intention of honoring, and let's grossly overpay him for results, let's give him a contract 2 years beyond his usefulness date, and then finally let's trade him away to get back some of the money that we should have never promised to begin with.

As disappointing as a TOP5 can be, bringing in the wrong veteran can be way more costly and detrimental to results, and Army has already shown an ugly tendency for getting those picks wrong.

Pick your poison... The wrong TOP 5. The wrong Saad or Krug.

This pivot to discussing Saad seems to have pretty much nothing to do with your main argument but even this argument doesn’t really make any sense to me.

I don’t see signing Saad as a mistake at all. We signed him as a UFA so gave up no assets to acquire him. We paid him $4.5M/year which was very fair value for a middle-6 winger with UFA bargaining power. He then did precisely what the Blues signed him for - putting up about a half a point per game for a few years. Then he trailed off a bit this year and we were able to jettison him for absolutely no cost. The only thing he “cost” was the opportunity cost of him playing for the Blues instead of someone else. I assume you think that someone else should’ve been a prospect of some kind? What prospect was NHL ready to be a 2nd to 3rd line RWer starting in the 2021-22 season?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with these sorts of vet signings to fill out your roster. You need a good balanced mix of youth and experience. Vets and hungry youngsters.

I agree with and understand all that you say here.

Do you agree with these statements? No

- Having a TOP 5 does not guarantee an Ovechkin. This is correct and has been stated numerous times.

- Signing a VET to fill a hole does not guarantee that the hole is filled. Yes it does as otherwise they wouldn't have acquired said veteran. Someone can beat them out or they can lose their position, but if you are signing a player, you are signing a player for a specific position.

- Army has never had a TOP 5 pick, and we have no idea what would have happened if he tried. Yes he has. He was the GM when we selected Petro.

- Army has signed many VETS to bloated NTC contracts that are now extremely difficult to crawl out from under. Every UFA that makes over a specified amount (4 million plus) and is under a specific age (30) is getting at minimum a NTC in UFA. That's simply the bare minimum players require to sign UFA contracts anymore. Now let's define the word many: What is your definition of many? The only ones that really come to mind are Krug and Saad. Krug has used his veto power to nix two trades, while Saad had a mutual parting. The players that weren't signed as UFA and remained here were absolutely getting NTC to extend for multiple years for below market value.

- Signing the wrong VET is more damaging to the team chemistry and salary cap than signing the wrong draft pick in the TOP 5.

Tell that to the Ottawa Senators when they drafted Alexander Daigle #1 overall and he cared far more about a possible acting career than he ever did about playing hockey. It is very rare that a player stays in the league for a decade and is a locker room cancer. If he is, it's because he outscore his attitude, but eventually that catches up to them and they are out of the league in no time. What player has Doug acquired that has been a locker room cancer? Don't for the love of God bring up Kevin Hayes and that idiotic rumor that he told Cutter Gauthier to not sign with the Flyers, that has been debunked several times.