Army's report card from the assylum members

[Old_Goat]

He gets an A+ from me. He might be the best GM St. Louis has ever had. Whitey Herzog in the early 80's when he transformed the Cardinals is the only other GM I can think of with the same success. I've been a fan since the beginning, and I've never felt better about better about the Blue's organizational depth.

Bing Devine was even better for the RedBirds in the 1960s. And he even was important as a Special Advisor to Walt Jocketty when he was GM. But make no mistake, I love the White Rat!

[MrPostman01]

Yet some attention getting poster, unsatisfied with the As, went on the Internet to find the lowest possible grade for Army to deflect from this thread.

[Cahokanut]

The team built before Army did very well. Those first five years were some of the best. As that team left and Army's team was iced. This team win percentage has been worse and worse with each additional five years.

I give little credit for the cup.
Outside of telling the hockey world this team was contractors and everyone was being made available.

While people "feel" and others that one Cup.
Stats say, he sucks.

[dtkblueshockey]

A.

Due to the laundry list of reasons others have mentioned.

Blues fans should be fortunate he has been GM as long as he has been.

[DawgDad]

The team built before Army did very well. Those first five years were some of the best. As that team left and Army's team was iced. This team win percentage has been worse and worse with each additional five years.

I give little credit for the cup.
Outside of telling the hockey world this team was contractors and everyone was being made available.

While people "feel" and others that one Cup.
Stats say, he sucks.

Yep, you're right, all of us are wrong.

[Cahokanut]

The team built before Army did very well. Those first five years were some of the best. As that team left and Army's team was iced. This team win percentage has been worse and worse with each additional five years.

I give little credit for the cup.
Outside of telling the hockey world this team was contractors and everyone was being made available.

While people "feel" and others that one Cup.
Stats say, he sucks.

Yep, you're right, all of us are wrong.

I rightly pointed at the stats.
You a feel'er or a CM.

[DawgDad]

The team built before Army did very well. Those first five years were some of the best. As that team left and Army's team was iced. This team win percentage has been worse and worse with each additional five years.

I give little credit for the cup.
Outside of telling the hockey world this team was contractors and everyone was being made available.

While people "feel" and others that one Cup.
Stats say, he sucks.

Yep, you're right, all of us are wrong.

I rightly pointed at the stats.
You a feel'er or a CM.

I'm a Blues fan. Long time, lot's of historical perspective. I don't agree with your take, your general interpretation and twisting of the facts. You will not influence my take on Army's tenure regardless of what you post.

I've enjoyed reading other people's views on Army's tenure with the Blues, none of which triggered me because I'm not pushing a negative contrarian agenda. You convey no appreciation or true understanding of all these opinions, only dismissal and disdain. Enjoy your island of darkness.

[SRV1990]

The team built before Army did very well. Those first five years were some of the best. As that team left and Army's team was iced. This team win percentage has been worse and worse with each additional five years.

I give little credit for the cup.
Outside of telling the hockey world this team was contractors and everyone was being made available.

While people "feel" and others that one Cup.
Stats say, he sucks.

Yep, you're right, all of us are wrong.

I rightly pointed at the stats.
You a feel'er or a CM.

I'm a Blues fan. Long time, lot's of historical perspective. I don't agree with your take, your general interpretation and twisting of the facts. You will not influence my take on Army's tenure regardless of what you post.

I've enjoyed reading other people's views on Army's tenure with the Blues, none of which triggered me because I'm not pushing a negative contrarian agenda. You convey no appreciation or true understanding of all these opinions, only dismissal and disdain. Enjoy your island of darkness.

It's hilarious when a tool such as Nut uses the word "facts" in a post, when in reality, facts matter little to someone with such a weak mind as Nut or smelly (donkey). They deal in trolling emotions and don't give two [censored] about facts. There are lots of great posters on here who do deal in facts and actually have knowledge of the game. Those two idiots are completely at the other end of that spectrum.

[moose-and-squirrel]

The team built before Army did very well. Those first five years were some of the best. As that team left and Army's team was iced. This team win percentage has been worse and worse with each additional five years.

I give little credit for the cup.
Outside of telling the hockey world this team was contractors and everyone was being made available.

While people "feel" and others that one Cup.
Stats say, he sucks.

Yep, you're right, all of us are wrong.

I rightly pointed at the stats.
You a feel'er or a CM.

I'm a Blues fan. Long time, lot's of historical perspective. I don't agree with your take, your general interpretation and twisting of the facts. You will not influence my take on Army's tenure regardless of what you post.

I've enjoyed reading other people's views on Army's tenure with the Blues, none of which triggered me because I'm not pushing a negative contrarian agenda. You convey no appreciation or true understanding of all these opinions, only dismissal and disdain. Enjoy your island of darkness.

you're arguing with someone that can't even construct a sentence correctly. good luck

[Army's Mom]

What stats?

By % of draft picks who play NHL games, he's at least top third.
By overall win % since he was GM, the Blues are 5th.
By players traded away versus players acquired, he'd more than break even (Bokk and Rundblad turned into Faulk and Tarasenko, he traded Jori Lehtera for Brayden Schenn, Berglund, Sobotka, and Tage Thompson for Ryan O'Reilly, etc.). The only players of value he traded away were Thompson, Tarasenko, and Mikkola - Tage got us a Cup, and Tarasenko and Mikkola weren't re-signing.
You can argue he overplayed his hand on Petro and compounded that mistake by overpaying Krug. I'd agree. But that's one mistake, complicated by the COVID flat cap years.
You can argue he got too cute with the expansion draft. I'd agree in hindsight. At the time, though, I thought it was the right move.

Even if I concede he effed up Petro and the expansion draft, he's still a Top 5 GM leaguewide over the past 15 years, and easily better than anyone else in Blues history.

[DawgDad]

What stats?

By % of draft picks who play NHL games, he's at least top third.
By overall win % since he was GM, the Blues are 5th.
By players traded away versus players acquired, he'd more than break even (Bokk and Rundblad turned into Faulk and Tarasenko, he traded Jori Lehtera for Brayden Schenn, Berglund, Sobotka, and Tage Thompson for Ryan O'Reilly, etc.). The only players of value he traded away were Thompson, Tarasenko, and Mikkola - Tage got us a Cup, and Tarasenko and Mikkola weren't re-signing.
You can argue he overplayed his hand on Petro and compounded that mistake by overpaying Krug. I'd agree. But that's one mistake, complicated by the COVID flat cap years.
You can argue he got too cute with the expansion draft. I'd agree in hindsight. At the time, though, I thought it was the right move.

Even if I concede he effed up Petro and the expansion draft, he's still a Top 5 GM leaguewide over the past 15 years, and easily better than anyone else in Blues history.

Generally agree with a couple of caveats.

On Petro, in the end it was the player's decision to walk away from a proposed deal. He had that right.

On the expansion draft, Army got cornered by a combination of the rules and Schwartz. The Blues were destined to lose a valuable asset in the draft, but should have only been one. The circumstances of the Schwartz signing made it appear to be a double-whammy, that would not have seemed quite so bad or unfair if Schwartz had signed with a different team.

On Krug, in fairness Army built a 109 point team in 21-22 and Krug was a part of that. How many Blues teams have matched or bettered 109 points, or scored 300 goals? Krug was beset by injuries and by perception he wasn't what the Blues really needed, and overpaid at that. When healthy he wasn't dragging the team down but he "came up short" defensively and to the eye test.

[STL fan in MN]

What stats?

By % of draft picks who play NHL games, he's at least top third.

Well above top 1/3 actually.

Here’s a study on NHL draft pick success:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/wh ... he-draft/

The writer used a 10 year range of 2010-2019. 2010 just so happens to be when Army took over as GM so it’s perfect for evaluating Army. The Blues have the 4th highest success rate in the league in that time.

And of course, the writer used a full decade and stopped at 2019 but the picks after that are all looking good too. Neighbours (2020), Bolduc (2021), Snuggerud (2022), Dvorsky, Stenberg and Lindstein (2023) etc will all likely help to keep his hit rate very high comparative to his peers.

[Blues Dave]

You guys have told the accomplishments stories very well, which directly pertains to my eyeball evaluation. As Tim said, the best. Gold star A.

[b-a-a-a-rclay]

Here's the stats on wins ... 5th overall in wins since 2010 (DA promoted to GM that year) and Most Wins in the western conference since then.

[Sudsy 11]

Grade A. Like Dave said you all covered it well. Army was always active to try to help improve the Blues and made many more positive moves than mistakes during his tenure.

[blues2112]

Ninth in career wins as GM.

source: https://records.nhl.com/records/general ... ins-career