Mailloux extended

[FortyOunceCurls]

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/article/blues-si ... extension/

Asset management… I will leave this here.

[DawgDad]

LOL. "Experts" herein be damned!

Good for him. Good for the team for keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings.

[Old_Goat]

Let's hope he gets a complete opportunity to play to his full potential. This is a good signing for both sides...perfect example of the beauty of short-term contracts in the early and late stages of a player's career. The Blues here could potentially have the greater risk? I know there are many here whom do not agree with that. We'll see how it goes.

[Harry S Deals]

As basically everyone has stated Logan Mailloux needs NHL reps perhaps as many as 200 GP as other young defenders have required, he has 40 games played currently

[Hockey Pete]

As basically everyone has stated Logan Mailloux needs NHL reps perhaps as many as 200 GP as other young defenders have required, he has 40 games played currently

+1.

Physical tools are there, we'll just have to wait and see if his brain-pan can adjust to the NHL. Could be a solid defender if it happens.

[Backesdraft]

As basically everyone has stated Logan Mailloux needs NHL reps perhaps as many as 200 GP as other young defenders have required, he has 40 games played currently

+1.

Physical tools are there, we'll just have to wait and see if his brain-pan can adjust to the NHL. Could be a solid defender if it happens.

Totally agree. He needs 1 more full season. If he has even a halfway decent year next season then $850K won’t be bad at all.

[MiamiLaw]

LOL. "Experts" herein be damned!

Good for him. Good for the team for keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings.

I have no problem with the signing. But I don't think this is the vindication you seem to be claiming in your post. It is one year at league minimum. Not exactly a vote of confidence from the team. It would be horrible asset management for the Blues to trade Bolduc for one year of LM (and it be the year he is putting up at that).

Like Pete says, hopefully his brain can start to catch up with the physical tools he has. No reason not to give him another year. He could look completely different next year since he is so young. Wouldn't be the first guy.

[MikoTython]

LOL. "Experts" herein be damned!

Good for him. Good for the team for keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings.

I have no problem with the signing. But I don't think this is the vindication you seem to be claiming in your post. It is one year at league minimum. Not exactly a vote of confidence from the team. It would be horrible asset management for the Blues to trade Bolduc for one year of LM (and it be the year he is putting up at that).

Like Pete says, hopefully his brain can start to catch up with the physical tools he has. No reason not to give him another year. He could look completely different next year since he is so young. Wouldn't be the first guy.

Yeah, I see this as a half-arsed move. In no way protects him as an asset. We get to watch him rise or fall, and then cash out or pay a(n avoidable) premium in the RFA market. Looks like they're backing out from him, sort of, but not quite.

[DawgDad]

LOL. "Experts" herein be damned!

Good for him. Good for the team for keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings.

I have no problem with the signing. But I don't think this is the vindication you seem to be claiming in your post. It is one year at league minimum. Not exactly a vote of confidence from the team. It would be horrible asset management for the Blues to trade Bolduc for one year of LM (and it be the year he is putting up at that).

Like Pete says, hopefully his brain can start to catch up with the physical tools he has. No reason not to give him another year. He could look completely different next year since he is so young. Wouldn't be the first guy.

Yeah, I see this as a half-arsed move. In no way protects him as an asset. We get to watch him rise or fall, and then cash out or pay a(n avoidable) premium in the RFA market. Looks like they're backing out from him, sort of, but not quite.

Vindication? Your [Miami] reading comprehension needs serious work. There is an ENTIRE THREAD still active with the OP theme Mailloux does not belong in the the NHL. If you don't comprehend how that led to me posting "LOL" you have blinders on. THAT has NOTHING to do with my personal assessment of Mailloux.

He got an NHL contract. All NHL contracts pay well. Good for him. Good for the team for not overpaying, keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings. It's a ONE YEAR contract extension. Pretty clear what THAT means.

Now, do you even care what I think about Mailloux as a player at this point?

[MiamiLaw]

LOL. "Experts" herein be damned!

Good for him. Good for the team for keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings.

I have no problem with the signing. But I don't think this is the vindication you seem to be claiming in your post. It is one year at league minimum. Not exactly a vote of confidence from the team. It would be horrible asset management for the Blues to trade Bolduc for one year of LM (and it be the year he is putting up at that).

Like Pete says, hopefully his brain can start to catch up with the physical tools he has. No reason not to give him another year. He could look completely different next year since he is so young. Wouldn't be the first guy.

Yeah, I see this as a half-arsed move. In no way protects him as an asset. We get to watch him rise or fall, and then cash out or pay a(n avoidable) premium in the RFA market. Looks like they're backing out from him, sort of, but not quite.

Vindication? Your reading comprehension needs serious work. There is an ENTIRE THREAD still active with the OP theme Mailloux does not belong in the the NHL. If you don't comprehend how that led to me posting "LOL" you have blinders on. THAT has NOTHING to do with my personal assessment of Mailloux.

He got an NHL contract. All NHL contracts pay well. Good for him. Good for the team for not overpaying, keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings. It's a ONE YEAR contract extension. Pretty clear what THAT means.

Now, do you even care what I think about Mailloux as a player at this point?

Of course I do.

But "LOL! Experts herein be damned" is absolutely you claiming that the debate is now settled about whether he's an NHL player. I seem to have comprehended it just fine based on your explanation. I mean, what else could you mean by that?

[BalotelliMassive]

There are players in the league making 4 million a year that don't belong in the NHL...

[skilles]

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this contract or even Mailloux himself really. The kid is putting in the effort and doing his best to figure it out as far as I can tell. It would be pretty stupid not to be glad we have him and be happy with the potential upside.

How we got him is my only big problem and I think his handling has been questionable at best and is largely based on how we got him which I think can quickly become toxic in a team environment.

However none of that is his fault and outside of his hockey instincts I'm happy with the way he has carried himself and his effort.

I really can't imagine not being Glad we have Mailloux in the mix or believing we didn't get took to the wood shed acquiring him. I know its very outside the norm in todays society but you don't have to hate the player because you hate the trade nor do you have to love the trade because you like the player.

Believe it or not being objective is still possible.

[stlblue06]

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this contract or even Mailloux himself really. The kid is putting in the effort and doing his best to figure it out as far as I can tell. It would be pretty stupid not to be glad we have him and be happy with the potential upside.

Seriously? It would be stupid to not be glad we have him? He has been a liability in the defensive zone. So bad that we had to staple Fowler to him while creating another terrible pairing of Faulk/Tucker. All of this while showing zero signs of his strength, which is offensive. 2 points on the year, his only goal scored wasn’t even impressive.

[skilles]

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this contract or even Mailloux himself really. The kid is putting in the effort and doing his best to figure it out as far as I can tell. It would be pretty stupid not to be glad we have him and be happy with the potential upside.

Seriously? It would be stupid to not be glad we have him? He has been a liability in the defensive zone. So bad that we had to staple Fowler to him while creating another terrible pairing of Faulk/Tucker. All of this while showing zero signs of his strength, which is offensive. 2 points on the year, his only goal scored wasn’t even impressive.

He's a prospect, wishing we had better deeper d does not me you can't/shouldn't be glad to have him in the mix for the future.

[DawgDad]

LOL. "Experts" herein be damned!

Good for him. Good for the team for keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings.

I have no problem with the signing. But I don't think this is the vindication you seem to be claiming in your post. It is one year at league minimum. Not exactly a vote of confidence from the team. It would be horrible asset management for the Blues to trade Bolduc for one year of LM (and it be the year he is putting up at that).

Like Pete says, hopefully his brain can start to catch up with the physical tools he has. No reason not to give him another year. He could look completely different next year since he is so young. Wouldn't be the first guy.

Yeah, I see this as a half-arsed move. In no way protects him as an asset. We get to watch him rise or fall, and then cash out or pay a(n avoidable) premium in the RFA market. Looks like they're backing out from him, sort of, but not quite.

Vindication? Your reading comprehension needs serious work. There is an ENTIRE THREAD still active with the OP theme Mailloux does not belong in the the NHL. If you don't comprehend how that led to me posting "LOL" you have blinders on. THAT has NOTHING to do with my personal assessment of Mailloux.

He got an NHL contract. All NHL contracts pay well. Good for him. Good for the team for not overpaying, keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings. It's a ONE YEAR contract extension. Pretty clear what THAT means.

Now, do you even care what I think about Mailloux as a player at this point?

Of course I do.

But "LOL! Experts herein be damned" is absolutely you claiming that the debate is now settled about whether he's an NHL player. I seem to have comprehended it just fine based on your explanation. I mean, what else could you mean by that?

It means the Blues brass didn't listen to the "experts" on this blog, specifically the ones aligned with the topic statement that Mailloux doesn't belong in the NHL. Actually, they likely didn't listen to ANY of us. Laughing at that has NOTHING to do with what I think.

You asked, so here we go: I still think Mailloux is a prospect worthy of taking a flyer on. His potential ceiling and positional value justifies the trade in my mind. Most likely at worst he winds up a third pairing guy with size and some upside athletic ability. He's clearly working on the defensive side of his game, trying to grow out of being a liability and frustrating his teammates. . As time passes and other players knock on the NHL door he'll either progress and earn his ice time or get moved. It's all on him, if he blossoms into a solid reliable player no one will take away his job, if he doesn't he'll be pushed aside.

[MiamiLaw]

LOL. "Experts" herein be damned!

Good for him. Good for the team for keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings.

I have no problem with the signing. But I don't think this is the vindication you seem to be claiming in your post. It is one year at league minimum. Not exactly a vote of confidence from the team. It would be horrible asset management for the Blues to trade Bolduc for one year of LM (and it be the year he is putting up at that).

Like Pete says, hopefully his brain can start to catch up with the physical tools he has. No reason not to give him another year. He could look completely different next year since he is so young. Wouldn't be the first guy.

Yeah, I see this as a half-arsed move. In no way protects him as an asset. We get to watch him rise or fall, and then cash out or pay a(n avoidable) premium in the RFA market. Looks like they're backing out from him, sort of, but not quite.

Vindication? Your reading comprehension needs serious work. There is an ENTIRE THREAD still active with the OP theme Mailloux does not belong in the the NHL. If you don't comprehend how that led to me posting "LOL" you have blinders on. THAT has NOTHING to do with my personal assessment of Mailloux.

He got an NHL contract. All NHL contracts pay well. Good for him. Good for the team for not overpaying, keeping him focused on earning his way up the pairings. It's a ONE YEAR contract extension. Pretty clear what THAT means.

Now, do you even care what I think about Mailloux as a player at this point?

Of course I do.

But "LOL! Experts herein be damned" is absolutely you claiming that the debate is now settled about whether he's an NHL player. I seem to have comprehended it just fine based on your explanation. I mean, what else could you mean by that?

It means the Blues brass didn't listen to the "experts" on this blog, specifically the ones aligned with the topic statement that Mailloux doesn't belong in the NHL. Actually, they likely didn't listen to ANY of us. Laughing at that has NOTHING to do with what I think.

You asked, so here we go: I still think Mailloux is a prospect worthy of taking a flyer on. His potential ceiling and positional value justifies the trade in my mind. Most likely at worst he winds up a third pairing guy with size and some upside athletic ability. He's clearly working on the defensive side of his game, trying to grow out of being a liability and frustrating his teammates. . As time passes and other players knock on the NHL door he'll either progress and earn his ice time or get moved. It's all on him, if he blossoms into a solid reliable player no one will take away his job, if he doesn't he'll be pushed aside.

I don't disagree with your take at all other than having no issue with the trade. I think the Blues overpaid and the scouting on him by the organization does not seem to have been very good as far as where he was in his development. There was really no organizational failsafe if he was not ready or faltered. But my critique of his play has nothing to do with being traded for Bolduc.

The tools make him an intriguing player. It's a rare combo. The Habs drafted him even though I asked not to be because of that.

EDIT: No clue where the italics are coming from...