Mails shouldn’t be in the NHL right now

[Jeff Goldblum]

Didn't the Blues take a chance on a defenseman who just won best defender at the WJC? The same defenseman who was anointed a bust by the same people on this same forum up to and including this season.

[Bubble4427]

Bolduc is pacing for less than 20 goals and less than 40 points, I'd still make that trade today knowing what we know now. Mailloux may never make it to 100 games played but I'll still take the chance on his skill set while trading from a position of strength.

Anything can happen down the road, I'm talking about the value when the deal was made. If you are counting on making bad value trades and them working out anyway you are going to lose that gamble most of the time.

It’s the “currency” of the NHL when talking about value.
22 year ago old RH defenseman in this league are the most valuable commodity in the league except for maybe a center.
Again, Bolduc scored 19 goals…19.
He’s not pacing for 20 goals this year. Bad value trade? Please. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.
To judge this trade, much less what Mailloux will be after less than 50 games in the NHL is just idiotic. If the Blues send him down for the rest of the season to get better….I still like the trade in the long run.

[dhsux]

Bolduc is pacing for less than 20 goals and less than 40 points, I'd still make that trade today knowing what we know now. Mailloux may never make it to 100 games played but I'll still take the chance on his skill set while trading from a position of strength.

Anything can happen down the road, I'm talking about the value when the deal was made. If you are counting on making bad value trades and them working out anyway you are going to lose that gamble most of the time.

It’s the “currency” of the NHL when talking about value.
22 year ago old RH defenseman in this league are the most valuable commodity in the league except for maybe a center.
Again, Bolduc scored 19 goals…19.
He’s not pacing for 20 goals this year. Bad value trade? Please. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.
To judge this trade, much less what Mailloux will be after less than 50 games in the NHL is just idiotic. If the Blues send him down for the rest of the season to get better….I still like the trade in the long run.

Skilles tell me if I'm wrong but having discussed this with you earlier if I have it right.....your position is this trade is a bust no matter what either player does henceforth because in your opinion the whole deal was a bad trade for the Blues when it was made.

Do I have that right?

[dhsux]

Anyone saying Mailloux shouldn't be in the NHL is being biased and has an agenda. Mailloux 100 percent should be a 6th defensemen in the NHL. The problem with the Blues is, they have a top 4 defense and then 2 6/7 guys in the lineup. So essentially you have 1 guy out there 66 percent of the time who is a bottom level defender on a team. The Blues and Army especially dropped the ball by not resigning Suter. If the plan was to go full LM all year, they should have given him a proven safety blanket that Tucker got last year with Suter. That way you could have continued your good defensive play with 2 really strong units and 1 serviceable one. Instead of you have holes in 2 of your units and people having to cover for guys that are learning.

Tucker's future in the NHL is 6/7. LM has more upside so we will see where that goes. But LM isn't an AHL player. He was an all star 2 years in a row. There's very little he can learn from being down there. He is a NHL player who needs to see NHL ice to get better. That's a fact.

Why does someone saying Mailloux shouldn't be in the NHL mean they have a bias or an agenda? The numbers are really bad - both the standard stats and the advanced metrics. There are tons of players that have been great AHL players that are unable to play in the NHL.

I don't think it's fair to just discount people who don't like what they see in him / don't like the trade as "biased". The objective stats support those with what you call an agenda.

Mailloux may end up being OK, but saying he has been any kind of positive contributor this year means you have to look past almost every stat and metric and rely solely on the subjective eye test and circumstantial evidence.

I love the people that say they’ve seen improvement in his game. It was posted recently 7 games -6 1 shot on goal. That’s improvement? I’d just like to know exactly wheee the improvement is. There’s absolutely no agenda here. Has nothing to do with Bolduc at this point.

-12 first 9 games

-9 last 21 games

And Fowler is -4 with 4 shots on goal. And look up Parayko. Do you watch the games? The D and his partners have not exactly been good.

You don't see the improvement since his first 9 games not sure what to tell you but plenty of others have a different opinion.



-

[theograce]

-12 first 9 games

-9 last 21 games.

-6 in his past 7 with one shot on goal

Now what?

[theograce]

Hasn’t had a shot on goal in 6 straight games.

And he’s a piggy on D

[dhsux]

Anyone saying Mailloux shouldn't be in the NHL is being biased and has an agenda. Mailloux 100 percent should be a 6th defensemen in the NHL. The problem with the Blues is, they have a top 4 defense and then 2 6/7 guys in the lineup. So essentially you have 1 guy out there 66 percent of the time who is a bottom level defender on a team. The Blues and Army especially dropped the ball by not resigning Suter. If the plan was to go full LM all year, they should have given him a proven safety blanket that Tucker got last year with Suter. That way you could have continued your good defensive play with 2 really strong units and 1 serviceable one. Instead of you have holes in 2 of your units and people having to cover for guys that are learning.

Tucker's future in the NHL is 6/7. LM has more upside so we will see where that goes. But LM isn't an AHL player. He was an all star 2 years in a row. There's very little he can learn from being down there. He is a NHL player who needs to see NHL ice to get better. That's a fact.

Why does someone saying Mailloux shouldn't be in the NHL mean they have a bias or an agenda? The numbers are really bad - both the standard stats and the advanced metrics. There are tons of players that have been great AHL players that are unable to play in the NHL.

I don't think it's fair to just discount people who don't like what they see in him / don't like the trade as "biased". The objective stats support those with what you call an agenda.

Mailloux may end up being OK, but saying he has been any kind of positive contributor this year means you have to look past almost every stat and metric and rely solely on the subjective eye test and circumstantial evidence.

He has not been a "positive contributor". He hasn't been "great". He hasn't even been an overall "good" either.

The problem is, that's not what the subject or discussion is really about in my mind or the minds of what most guys backing him are saying..

And as for agenda driven posters, yes, they really do exist and they actually do post here for dubious purpose.

All the time for some.

[theograce]

And as for agenda driven posters

One of the worst seasons in franchise history so far

Laughing

[Jeff Goldblum]

The Blues have the worst GD in the league and have 3 players with a positive +/-. But let's single one rookie out who is playing on one of the most anemic teams in the league and (buzz) about him nonstop.

[theograce]

And as for agenda driven posters

One of the worst seasons in franchise history so far

Laughing

Must be all those tough matchups he’s getting.

[Bubble4427]

Bolduc is pacing for less than 20 goals and less than 40 points, I'd still make that trade today knowing what we know now. Mailloux may never make it to 100 games played but I'll still take the chance on his skill set while trading from a position of strength.

Anything can happen down the road, I'm talking about the value when the deal was made. If you are counting on making bad value trades and them working out anyway you are going to lose that gamble most of the time.

It’s the “currency” of the NHL when talking about value.
22 year ago old RH defenseman in this league are the most valuable commodity in the league except for maybe a center.
Again, Bolduc scored 19 goals…19.
He’s not pacing for 20 goals this year. Bad value trade? Please. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.
To judge this trade, much less what Mailloux will be after less than 50 games in the NHL is just idiotic. If the Blues send him down for the rest of the season to get better….I still like the trade in the long run.

Skilles tell me if I'm wrong but having discussed this with you earlier if I have it right.....your position is this trade is a bust no matter what either player does henceforth because in your opinion the whole deal was a bad trade for the Blues when it was made.

Do I have that right?

You have it wrong.
I would trade Bolduc tomorrow and drive him to the airport for a 22 year old RH defenseman with the tools that Mailloux has. It’s a risk, but a risk that is worth taking. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.

[blackinkbiz]

I strive to be as honest and fair as I am able.

I, honestly, don't know Defensive strategies enough to have a POV.
If they switched the system, why do you suppose they did so?

If it is , indeed, a big reason why we are lost for offensive opportunities and/or hanging our, otherwise stellar goalies out to dry...why the devil don't they address it once again?

I appreciate all input other than bitter and high-stress troll bait.

Last season, upon his arrival, Monty instituted a "clog-the-middle" type of defensive zone coverage. If you recall, the Blues began blocking a lot more shots around that time. It wasn't great at first, but once 4-Nations hit and the team + coaching staff had a couple weeks to work on it, they had it going gangbusters after that until the end.

Unless my memory fails me, when this season began, they kept the same successful system. But, both goalies were playing terribly and injuries began to pile up, and, apparently, at some point they swtiched their coverage to a man2man. I asked the same question? WTH would you mess with that? About a week ago, forum user Blues89723 or whatever his number is, said he heard Monty state the bad goalie play + injuries was the reason.

I've barely watched the last 3 games (the worst losing streak of the season imo) so I'm assuming they're still on the man2man but considering how lifeless, disinterested, and basically pathetic the team now looks, whatever they're doing, it's been lost on the players.

TBH, it's reached the point I no longer emotionally care. This is literally the worst team I've ever seen followed by many of the worst individual performances I've ever seen.

If the team bus crashed and they all missed the rest of the season due to injuries and/or coma, I'd probably be more interested in seeing the system's depth than I would be in watching these losers.

wow thats cruel to say.

Yes theyve been horrible to watch but thats not cool to more or less that you hope the team bus crashes

lol ... the freakin' internet... I didn't say, imply, hope, or state anything along the lines of expressing any kind of desire for anyone to be injured in any way at all. It was simply a metaphor to express just how done I am with watching the current iteration of this team. The last game against Vegas (what little bits I was able to stomach) jumped the shark for me. They're beyond bad.

I'd honestly rather watch the farm system just to try and guage what they currently have for the future. Of course, after 1 game, I'm sure I'd change my mind and switch back. They need to start doing something right, win or lose.

Any Mailloux hasn't done jack to help them in any way at all. He's clearly got talent. And he's clearly doing nothing with it atm.

[dhsux]

Bolduc is pacing for less than 20 goals and less than 40 points, I'd still make that trade today knowing what we know now. Mailloux may never make it to 100 games played but I'll still take the chance on his skill set while trading from a position of strength.

Anything can happen down the road, I'm talking about the value when the deal was made. If you are counting on making bad value trades and them working out anyway you are going to lose that gamble most of the time.

It’s the “currency” of the NHL when talking about value.
22 year ago old RH defenseman in this league are the most valuable commodity in the league except for maybe a center.
Again, Bolduc scored 19 goals…19.
He’s not pacing for 20 goals this year. Bad value trade? Please. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.
To judge this trade, much less what Mailloux will be after less than 50 games in the NHL is just idiotic. If the Blues send him down for the rest of the season to get better….I still like the trade in the long run.

Skilles tell me if I'm wrong but having discussed this with you earlier if I have it right.....your position is this trade is a bust no matter what either player does henceforth because in your opinion the whole deal was a bad trade for the Blues when it was made.

Do I have that right?

You have it wrong.
I would trade Bolduc tomorrow and drive him to the airport for a 22 year old RH defenseman with the tools that Mailloux has. It’s a risk, but a risk that is worth taking. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.

Just trying to pin Skilles down on precisely what he is saying. Pretty sure this is it.

He's saying the basis for the trade is the trade and no matter how good either player plays henceforth.... the Blues over paid.

It's quite a strange position imo.

[theograce]

It's quite a strange position imo.

Strange is saying he’s playing better lately using statistics and not using the most recent statistics that indicate otherwise.

Laughing

[zamadoo]

The Blues have the worst GD in the league and have 3 players with a positive +/-. But let's single one rookie out who is playing on one of the most anemic teams in the league and (A female canine animal, especially a dog) about him nonstop.

right (as in I agree and it's funny)

[skilles]

Bolduc is pacing for less than 20 goals and less than 40 points, I'd still make that trade today knowing what we know now. Mailloux may never make it to 100 games played but I'll still take the chance on his skill set while trading from a position of strength.

Anything can happen down the road, I'm talking about the value when the deal was made. If you are counting on making bad value trades and them working out anyway you are going to lose that gamble most of the time.

It’s the “currency” of the NHL when talking about value.
22 year ago old RH defenseman in this league are the most valuable commodity in the league except for maybe a center.
Again, Bolduc scored 19 goals…19.
He’s not pacing for 20 goals this year. Bad value trade? Please. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.
To judge this trade, much less what Mailloux will be after less than 50 games in the NHL is just idiotic. If the Blues send him down for the rest of the season to get better….I still like the trade in the long run.

Skilles tell me if I'm wrong but having discussed this with you earlier if I have it right.....your position is this trade is a bust no matter what either player does henceforth because in your opinion the whole deal was a bad trade for the Blues when it was made.

Do I have that right?

You have it wrong.
I would trade Bolduc tomorrow and drive him to the airport for a 22 year old RH defenseman with the tools that Mailloux has. It’s a risk, but a risk that is worth taking. It’s the cost of doing business in the NHL.

Just trying to pin Skilles down on precisely what he is saying. Pretty sure this is it.

He's saying the basis for the trade is the trade and no matter how good either player plays henceforth.... the Blues over paid.

It's quite a strange position imo.

Its not strange, its just not your usual "group think" yes I think paying way more than market value in trades is bad...even if you get lucky

Trading a 1st for a 3rd is not good no matter who turns out better.