Would Marco Rossi Be A Good Fit For The St. Louis Blues?

[seattleblue]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

[netboy65]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

[seattleblue]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

[netboy65]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don’t recall you being around here at that time, so who were you before?

[STL fan in MN]

I hated the idea of signing Krug the moment it was announced.

That said, not surprised they protected Krug a year later for the expansion draft. Of course they were going to. But it’s also old news and I’d like to move on.

[seattleblue]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don’t recall you being around here at that time, so who were you before?

I wasn't posting here when that all went down. You don't know one way or the other what my position was, but I am straightforward if I am right or wrong about something, because it's the only way to participate if you're serious about it.

Are you now claiming I didn't hate the Krug signing from Day 1 because I wasn't on record with you here? I have referred to 9/27/20 as a horror dark day in franchise history. I actually took that position when it wasn't popular and took a ton of heat for it. I took deeply personal [shirt] for this opinion and had to go to war over it as the minority position while being correct the entire time. it was annoying AF. I know MN and several others are aware.

[skilles]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don't remember there being much of a curve to be honest and rightfully so, losing Petro and gaining Krug was always really bad. I think even most of the people that supported that move were manipulated into doing so by bleedr

[STL fan in MN]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don’t recall you being around here at that time, so who were you before?

I wasn't posting here when that all went down. You don't know one way or the other what my position was, but I am straightforward if I am right or wrong about something, because it's the only way to participate if you're serious about it.

Are you now claiming I didn't hate the Krug signing from Day 1 because I wasn't on record with you here? I have referred to 9/27/20 as a horror dark day in franchise history. I actually took that position when it wasn't popular and took a ton of heat for it. I took deeply personal [shirt] for this opinion and had to go to war over it as the minority position while being correct the entire time. it was annoying AF. I know MN and several others are aware.

Can confirm Seattle has hated the Krug move since Day 1 as well. He’s a longtime poster from HFBlues. I obviously don’t remember every poster’s takes over the years but he’s been hammering that for years so yeah, it’s a pretty established position of his.

[seattleblue]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don't remember there being much of a curve to be honest and rightfully so, losing Petro and gaining Krug was always really bad. I think even most of the people that supported that move were manipulated into doing so by bleedr

It was the minority opinion as I recall, though there were plenty of wiser people who hated it from day 1. Bleeder was completely and thoroughly correct in the Pietrangelo argument over on this forum and he was doing an art show for lurkers to expose how people could be influenced into making themselves ridiculous by ridiculing Pietrangelo. He was doing bad behavior by toxifying the whole argument, but I was rooting for him in substance, because people were responding to him the way they would respond to me. The whole thing was so personal – until Petro absolutely curb stomped one side of the argument by leading Vegas in ice time to a Cup – that it could not be discussed in any forum. When he won the Cup and we were missing the playoffs it became undeniable. So now it's been commonly accepted for awhile that it was bad.

[skilles]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don't remember there being much of a curve to be honest and rightfully so, losing Petro and gaining Krug was always really bad. I think even most of the people that supported that move were manipulated into doing so by bleedr

It was the minority opinion as I recall, though there were plenty of wiser people who hated it from day 1. Bleeder was completely and thoroughly correct in the Pietrangelo argument over on this forum and he was doing an art show for lurkers to expose how people could be influenced into making themselves ridiculous by ridiculing Pietrangelo. He was doing bad behavior by toxifying the whole argument, but I was rooting for him in substance, because people were responding to him the way they would respond to me. The whole thing was so personal – until Petro absolutely curb stomped one side of the argument by leading Vegas in ice time to a Cup – that it could not be discussed in any forum. When he won the Cup and we were missing the playoffs it became undeniable. So now it's been commonly accepted for awhile that it was bad.

oh its still not that commonly accepted as incredible as that is.

Its like a very telling social experiment

[netboy65]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don’t recall you being around here at that time, so who were you before?

I wasn't posting here when that all went down. You don't know one way or the other what my position was, but I am straightforward if I am right or wrong about something, because it's the only way to participate if you're serious about it.

Are you now claiming I didn't hate the Krug signing from Day 1 because I wasn't on record with you here? I have referred to 9/27/20 as a horror dark day in franchise history. I actually took that position when it wasn't popular and took a ton of heat for it. I took deeply personal [shirt] for this opinion and had to go to war over it as the minority position while being correct the entire time. it was annoying AF. I know MN and several others are aware.

I was just asking a question. Several folks have changed names for one reason or another. (No not just talking about youknowwho)

[seattleblue]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don't remember there being much of a curve to be honest and rightfully so, losing Petro and gaining Krug was always really bad. I think even most of the people that supported that move were manipulated into doing so by bleedr

It was the minority opinion as I recall, though there were plenty of wiser people who hated it from day 1. Bleeder was completely and thoroughly correct in the Pietrangelo argument over on this forum and he was doing an art show for lurkers to expose how people could be influenced into making themselves ridiculous by ridiculing Pietrangelo. He was doing bad behavior by toxifying the whole argument, but I was rooting for him in substance, because people were responding to him the way they would respond to me. The whole thing was so personal – until Petro absolutely curb stomped one side of the argument by leading Vegas in ice time to a Cup – that it could not be discussed in any forum. When he won the Cup and we were missing the playoffs it became undeniable. So now it's been commonly accepted for awhile that it was bad.

oh its still not that commonly accepted as incredible as that is.

Its like a very telling social experiment

I am aware, since for the first two months I was posting here I had to deal with like a dozen people claiming I "was" bleedr because I'd had the temerity to agree with him in substance on this issue, so impossible was it that a second person could agree with an obvious hockey position.

[netboy65]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don't remember there being much of a curve to be honest and rightfully so, losing Petro and gaining Krug was always really bad. I think even most of the people that supported that move were manipulated into doing so by bleedr

The thing most people get wrong in 2025 is that it wasn’t a Krug for Petro 1 for 1 swap. Parayko was supposed to move up and be the #1 d-man and Krug was brought in to help offset some of the lost offense.

[skilles]

The Blues expected Schwartz to depart in free agency (to Seatle) so they didn't protect him. Seattle didn't need to select him, they selected Dunn when Armstrong protected the guy who hit Thomas that time in the Finals, did you see that big hit? What a physical hitter! and crushed Armstrong's mind and thus our hopes for years.

Krug had just signed here the year before, no way we weren’t protecting him

I agree with you – "We already had money invested in the pot, we couldn't fold a bad hand!" was the logic and Armstrong was never going to fold that [shirt]ty hand one year after placing a big ego bet on it.

Krug did well his first year. At that point in time, why is it a bad hand? Hindsight is great now

Absolute spit take at the concept of wanting to get rid of Krug = "hindsight"

no I was just wayyy ahead of that curve

I don't remember there being much of a curve to be honest and rightfully so, losing Petro and gaining Krug was always really bad. I think even most of the people that supported that move were manipulated into doing so by bleedr

The thing most people get wrong in 2025 is that it wasn’t a Krug for Petro 1 for 1 swap. Parayko was supposed to move up and be the #1 d-man and Krug was brought in to help offset some of the lost offense.

If Petro goes out, Krug comes in, and you save 2 million dollars you got it badly wrong.

Army has done some great things but that was not at all one of them and it was really ugly then and now

[STL fan in MN]

The topic here is Marco Rossi, correct?

(feeble attempt this doesn’t turn into another Petro thread).

[seattleblue]

The topic here is Marco Rossi, correct?

(feeble attempt this doesn’t turn into another Petro thread).

Your opening post on Rossi was too complete and covered it all to keep discussing it, it's your fault we ran out of Rossi