HockeyWriters: Blues regret trading Bolduc for Mailloux

[a smell of green grass]

I was very opposed to this trade. It's becoming obvious now. Thanks Army.

https://thehockeywriters.com/blues-shou ... canadiens/

[Pierre McGuire]

I was very opposed to this trade. It's becoming obvious now. Thanks Army.

https://thehockeywriters.com/blues-shou ... canadiens/

First of all it’s hockey writers..it’s really just a fan based site.I used to write draft articles for them back in the day.
The Blues had their reasons for trading Bolduc. That was an organizational decision meaning everybody was onboard. It wasn’t like Army traded Bolduc and surprised his staff. Also way too early to judge Mailloux other than he doesn’t appear to be ready. I doubt the Blues ever regret the deal. It may not work out but it’s not like Bolduc is going to be a star.

[Tony Palazzolo]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

[Cahokanut]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

While I wouldn't of traded Bolduc. Because of the game he plays. I could of got behind it, if Army got what the kid was worth. However going back to his first camp. It was clear He wasn't like by Army's little Cheddar and the guy next door.

Once you have a issue with the waaaa I want to be a center. You have a issue with Army therefore coach.

[skilles]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

[Pierre McGuire]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

We don’t know the full story of why the trade was made, I don’t buy for a second the reason that we were given.

[dhsux]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

RIGHT NOW it stands as an uneven trade.

The poster is talking about something very different than "right now".

[dhsux]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

We don’t know the full story of why the trade was made, I don’t buy for a second the reason that we were given.

So do you have a suspicion about Bolduc Pierre?

[Pierre McGuire]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

We don’t know the full story of why the trade was made, I don’t buy for a second the reason that we were given.

So do you have a suspicion about Bolduc Pierre?

Pretty sure it was the Winnipeg series. Bolduc was beyond terrible but what happened behind the scenes, I don’t know

[skilles]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

RIGHT NOW it stands as an uneven trade.

The poster is talking about something very different than "right now".

Well right now matters and the value of players when they were traded matters.

Trying to apply the logic of a rebuilding team trading an aging vet for a future to this trade is just A way to not say it was a horrific trade and that the player we got was grossly miss evaluated by the people in charge here.

It is what it is and can't be undone now but there needs to be a serious look at how we are evaluating d men around here and it needs addressed. Whoever we have doing that is doing a VERY poor job and whatever the process is it is in need of change.

If we were going to trade from a "surplus" which I think was premature unless it was for the right guy this was not it. I'm perfectly ok bring in Mailloux but this was a really bad trade and was a gross miss.

Its screams country club culture like the personal relationships are a huge factor and not job performance. Someone is doing a VERY bad job evaluating d.

This team is very rough right now not just because of that one terrible trade but because of a wildly incompetent evaluation of d men over a significant time frame.

[MiamiLaw]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

We don’t know the full story of why the trade was made, I don’t buy for a second the reason that we were given.

So do you have a suspicion about Bolduc Pierre?

Pretty sure it was the Winnipeg series. Bolduc was beyond terrible but what happened behind the scenes, I don’t know

I think there’s something to that. Maybe he got dressed down for taking that horrid penalty in game 1 and lashed out?

[dhsux]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

RIGHT NOW it stands as an uneven trade.

The poster is talking about something very different than "right now".

Well right now matters and the value of players when they were traded matters.

Trying to apply the logic of a rebuilding team trading an aging vet for a future to this trade is just A way to not say it was a horrific trade and that the player we got was grossly miss evaluated by the people in charge here.

It is what it is and can't be undone now but there needs to be a serious look at how we are evaluating d men around here and it needs addressed. Whoever we have doing that is doing a VERY poor job and whatever the process is it is in need of change.

If we were going to trade from a "surplus" which I think was premature unless it was for the right guy this was not it. I'm perfectly ok bring in Mailloux but this was a really bad trade and was a gross miss.

Its screams country club culture like the personal relationships are a huge factor and not job performance. Someone is doing a VERY bad job evaluating d.

This team is very rough right now not just because of that one terrible trade but because of a wildly incompetent evaluation of d men over a significant time frame.

Aging vet? You mean Bolduc?

Yeah this trade has hurt this team right now. A team that wanted to truly turn a corner this year. But not near to the degree it's being portrayed by so many playing so poorly. And I get your disgust? with doing this right now, without positive result and in line with other past poor decisions on the D line. I get the frustration.

I'll have no problem calling this trade what it actually is once I know what it is. Right now I do not and you do not. But if Mailloux comes around to a top 4 RHD I am going to call it a great trade, no matter when they did it.

[skilles]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

RIGHT NOW it stands as an uneven trade.

The poster is talking about something very different than "right now".

Well right now matters and the value of players when they were traded matters.

Trying to apply the logic of a rebuilding team trading an aging vet for a future to this trade is just A way to not say it was a horrific trade and that the player we got was grossly miss evaluated by the people in charge here.

It is what it is and can't be undone now but there needs to be a serious look at how we are evaluating d men around here and it needs addressed. Whoever we have doing that is doing a VERY poor job and whatever the process is it is in need of change.

If we were going to trade from a "surplus" which I think was premature unless it was for the right guy this was not it. I'm perfectly ok bring in Mailloux but this was a really bad trade and was a gross miss.

Its screams country club culture like the personal relationships are a huge factor and not job performance. Someone is doing a VERY bad job evaluating d.

This team is very rough right now not just because of that one terrible trade but because of a wildly incompetent evaluation of d men over a significant time frame.

Aging vet? You mean Bolduc?

Yeah this trade has hurt this team right now. A team that wanted to truly turn a corner this year. But not near to the degree it's being portrayed by so many playing so poorly. And I get your disgust? with doing this right now, without positive result and in line with other past poor decisions on the D line. I get the frustration.

I'll have no problem calling this trade what it actually is once I know what it is. Right now I do not and you do not. But if Mailloux comes around to a top 4 RHD I am going to call it a great trade, no matter when they did it.

No I don't mean Bolduc, I mean we are treating this trade LIKE we trading an aging vet for a developing future and that is not what we did.

If Mailloux turns out to be a legit top RHD is will be because we got lucky.....the evaluation of the player and the players market value were terrible.

[BalotelliMassive]

If the goal was to get 5% better this season then trading an established forward for a project might not be the best way to kick it off.

[WilliamWestcliffe]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

RIGHT NOW it stands as an uneven trade.

The poster is talking about something very different than "right now".

[…] there needs to be a serious look at how we are evaluating d men around here and it needs addressed. Whoever we have doing that is doing a VERY poor job and whatever the process is it is in need of change.

Man. Isn’t that the truth. It’s been almost a decade of fumbling the bag on defense and its cost this organization a metric ton of prospects, money and time.

Pietrangelo
Dunn
Mikkola
Edmondson
Leddy
Perunovich
Krug
Mailloux

Who am I missing? I know there’s more.

[skilles]

I just don't get it with all the hate for this trade. We traded from a position of strength for a position of weakness. We traded a position that is easier to find for a position that is harder to find. The cost was a player that had more NHL experience for a player that still needs seasoning. It was never going to look good in year one. It may not pan out, but if it does it will in years 2, 3 and beyond. It's the same as trading a player for a draft pick except with a much shorter time frame.

I honestly don't know how you could not get it at this point that it was a bad trade.

RIGHT NOW it stands as an uneven trade.

The poster is talking about something very different than "right now".

[…] there needs to be a serious look at how we are evaluating d men around here and it needs addressed. Whoever we have doing that is doing a VERY poor job and whatever the process is it is in need of change.

Man. Isn’t that the truth. It’s been almost a decade of fumbling the bag on defense and its cost this organization a metric ton of prospects, money and time.

Pietrangelo
Dunn
Mikkola
Edmondson
Leddy
Perunovich
Krug
Mailloux

Who am I missing? I know there’s more.

Yeah it has been really bad, Armstrong job is not really to do that evaluating, his job is to put the right people in place to do it and evaluate them.