Is Re-Whatever 2.0 going to be better?

[a smell of green grass]

It's a good thing that the Blues don't have to trade to get Thomas. We'd have ZERO chance. How well positioned are we to satisfy our own demands?

The Blues would have no prospects that have the potential to be a 1C.
No prospects that have the potential to be a top line D.
No Round 2 picks in 2026 or 2027.

Hmmm. I thought that we just completed our re-whatever? We should be overflowing with young potential stars.

Why is it that teams like Boston and LA and Carolina have the prospect and draft capital to acquire Thomas?

Summary:
The Blues accomplished very little in Re-Whatever 1.0 to move towards a young contender. Other teams, not even "rebuilding" ones, accomplished much more. They have the prospects, not us.

It's time to ask Army why this is. What went wrong? It's time to ask Army how Re-Whatever 2.0 is going to be better?

[MandatoryDenial]

The Blues would have no prospects that have the potential to be a 1C.
No prospects that have the potential to be a top line D.
No Round 2 picks in 2026 or 2027.

1.) Some would argue that we already have a #1 C, his name is Robert Thomas.
2.) Strange I thought Broberg and Jiriceck had that potential.
3.) Who cares if you replace them with #1s ? In fact isn't this kind of what you want to pick higher then a #2?

[TheJackBurton]

:::sigh::::

[fish]

Sad sad dude

[LGB73]

I wouldn't even put a grade on the Re-Whatever 1.0 for another 2-3 seasons so hard to say we've already moved on to 2.0.

[a smell of green grass]

I see that no one is disagreeing with me--unless you are in the camp of WAIT/WAIT/WAIT for an answer that we already know. That must be because I am spot on again.

If you don't see the need to demand an explanation from Army, you risk many years of losing hockey. 2025 is going to look good compared to what comes next.

Dear Army,
Why does Boston have a much better prospect pipeline than we do? Any ideas?
Why is it that you couldn't find prospects in your own pipeline good enough to acquire Thomas, while many other teams do have the trade value?
Love ASOGG.

[HazeGray977]

Same sh.it, different day….

[a smell of green grass]

Same sh.it, different day….

I demand better. You take what they give you. Nothing changes. I agree.

[sdaltons]

Same sh.it, different day….

Remember when it said it would back off a bit? More empty words from OP. It must really think posting here is going to change something in the Blues organization. Must be tough to be that delusional.

[Walter Sobchak00]

I see that no one is disagreeing with me--unless you are in the camp of WAIT/WAIT/WAIT for an answer that we already know. That must be because I am spot on again.

If you don't see the need to demand an explanation from Army, you risk many years of losing hockey. 2025 is going to look good compared to what comes next.

Dear Army,
Why does Boston have a much better prospect pipeline than we do? Any ideas?
Why is it that you couldn't find prospects in your own pipeline good enough to acquire Thomas, while many other teams do have the trade value?
Love ASOGG.

Boston doesn’t have a better prospect pipeline.

The Blues do have a prospect pool that could acquire a player like Thomas.

Love Army.

[SpacemanSpiff]

Boston doesn’t have a better prospect pipeline.

The Blues do have a prospect pool that could acquire a player like Thomas.

Love Army.

Couldn't agree more. Love Armstrong and what he's done for the Blues.

[a smell of green grass]

I see that no one is disagreeing with me--unless you are in the camp of WAIT/WAIT/WAIT for an answer that we already know. That must be because I am spot on again.

If you don't see the need to demand an explanation from Army, you risk many years of losing hockey. 2025 is going to look good compared to what comes next.

Dear Army,
Why does Boston have a much better prospect pipeline than we do? Any ideas?
Why is it that you couldn't find prospects in your own pipeline good enough to acquire Thomas, while many other teams do have the trade value?
Love ASOGG.

Boston doesn’t have a better prospect pipeline.

The Blues do have a prospect pool that could acquire a player like Thomas.

Love Army.

What do the Blues need in return for Thomas--at bare minimum?
Answer: A young potential 1C. Because if Thomas is gone, we don't have anything that resembles 1C talent.

If the Blues had a potential 1C in the system, we would not NEED ONE in return for Thomas.

So Army at this time is scouting around for a young potential 1C, AKA a "younger Thomas". The unfortunate circumstance for Army is the THE BUYERS are generally NOT THE TEAMS with the large prospect pipelines. Nope, the BUYERS are teams like the Bruins that want to add one critical missing piece for another chance at a CUP. And THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARISE!!! Why do the Bruins have the type of prospects that we don't have ourselves?!

So when Army makes a trade (if he makes a trade), ask yourself how the BUYER team has what we don't have? "Why do they have the young Thomas, but we don't"?.

[zamadoo]

I see that no one is disagreeing with me--unless you are in the camp of WAIT/WAIT/WAIT for an answer that we already know. That must be because I am spot on again.

If you don't see the need to demand an explanation from Army, you risk many years of losing hockey. 2025 is going to look good compared to what comes next.

Dear Army,
Why does Boston have a much better prospect pipeline than we do? Any ideas?
Why is it that you couldn't find prospects in your own pipeline good enough to acquire Thomas, while many other teams do have the trade value?
Love ASOGG.

Boston doesn’t have a better prospect pipeline.

The Blues do have a prospect pool that could acquire a player like Thomas.

Love Army.

What do the Blues need in return for Thomas--at bare minimum?
Answer: A young potential 1C. Because if Thomas is gone, we don't have anything that resembles 1C talent.

If the Blues had a potential 1C in the system, we would not NEED ONE in return for Thomas.

So Army at this time is scouting around for a young potential 1C, AKA a "younger Thomas". The unfortunate circumstance for Army is the THE BUYERS are generally NOT THE TEAMS with the large prospect pipelines. Nope, the BUYERS are teams like the Bruins that want to add one critical missing piece for another chance at a CUP. And THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARISE!!! Why do the Bruins have the type of prospects that we don't have ourselves?!

So when Army makes a trade (if he makes a trade), ask yourself how the BUYER team has what we don't have? "Why do they have the young Thomas, but we don't"?.

Dalibor Dvorsky is his name. Say it.

[a smell of green grass]

I see that no one is disagreeing with me--unless you are in the camp of WAIT/WAIT/WAIT for an answer that we already know. That must be because I am spot on again.

If you don't see the need to demand an explanation from Army, you risk many years of losing hockey. 2025 is going to look good compared to what comes next.

Dear Army,
Why does Boston have a much better prospect pipeline than we do? Any ideas?
Why is it that you couldn't find prospects in your own pipeline good enough to acquire Thomas, while many other teams do have the trade value?
Love ASOGG.

Boston doesn’t have a better prospect pipeline.

The Blues do have a prospect pool that could acquire a player like Thomas.

Love Army.

What do the Blues need in return for Thomas--at bare minimum?
Answer: A young potential 1C. Because if Thomas is gone, we don't have anything that resembles 1C talent.

If the Blues had a potential 1C in the system, we would not NEED ONE in return for Thomas.

So Army at this time is scouting around for a young potential 1C, AKA a "younger Thomas". The unfortunate circumstance for Army is the THE BUYERS are generally NOT THE TEAMS with the large prospect pipelines. Nope, the BUYERS are teams like the Bruins that want to add one critical missing piece for another chance at a CUP. And THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARISE!!! Why do the Bruins have the type of prospects that we don't have ourselves?!

So when Army makes a trade (if he makes a trade), ask yourself how the BUYER team has what we don't have? "Why do they have the young Thomas, but we don't"?.

Dalibor Dvorsky is his name. Say it.

Army is trading Thomas because our best players are outplayed too often by the other team's best players. Army's words, not mine.

Are you saying that Dalibor Dvorsky will be better than Thomas in the future? My understanding is that DD is projected to be a 2C, maybe.

[zamadoo]

I see that no one is disagreeing with me--unless you are in the camp of WAIT/WAIT/WAIT for an answer that we already know. That must be because I am spot on again.

If you don't see the need to demand an explanation from Army, you risk many years of losing hockey. 2025 is going to look good compared to what comes next.

Dear Army,
Why does Boston have a much better prospect pipeline than we do? Any ideas?
Why is it that you couldn't find prospects in your own pipeline good enough to acquire Thomas, while many other teams do have the trade value?
Love ASOGG.

Boston doesn’t have a better prospect pipeline.

The Blues do have a prospect pool that could acquire a player like Thomas.

Love Army.

What do the Blues need in return for Thomas--at bare minimum?
Answer: A young potential 1C. Because if Thomas is gone, we don't have anything that resembles 1C talent.

If the Blues had a potential 1C in the system, we would not NEED ONE in return for Thomas.

So Army at this time is scouting around for a young potential 1C, AKA a "younger Thomas". The unfortunate circumstance for Army is the THE BUYERS are generally NOT THE TEAMS with the large prospect pipelines. Nope, the BUYERS are teams like the Bruins that want to add one critical missing piece for another chance at a CUP. And THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARISE!!! Why do the Bruins have the type of prospects that we don't have ourselves?!

So when Army makes a trade (if he makes a trade), ask yourself how the BUYER team has what we don't have? "Why do they have the young Thomas, but we don't"?.

Dalibor Dvorsky is his name. Say it.

Army is trading Thomas because our best players are outplayed too often by the other team's best players. Army's words, not mine.

Are you saying that Dalibor Dvorsky will be better than Thomas in the future? My understanding is that DD is projected to be a 2C, maybe.

They took him #10 OA and watched him dominate crease to crease at the world stage after playing with men at 17 to be a 2C?

The only reason this is even a discussion is because Dvo is making noise at the Olympics and headlines are buzzing saying his emergence makes Thomas expendable so here's a list of teams he could go to...

[a smell of green grass]

I see that no one is disagreeing with me--unless you are in the camp of WAIT/WAIT/WAIT for an answer that we already know. That must be because I am spot on again.

If you don't see the need to demand an explanation from Army, you risk many years of losing hockey. 2025 is going to look good compared to what comes next.

Dear Army,
Why does Boston have a much better prospect pipeline than we do? Any ideas?
Why is it that you couldn't find prospects in your own pipeline good enough to acquire Thomas, while many other teams do have the trade value?
Love ASOGG.

Boston doesn’t have a better prospect pipeline.

The Blues do have a prospect pool that could acquire a player like Thomas.

Love Army.

What do the Blues need in return for Thomas--at bare minimum?
Answer: A young potential 1C. Because if Thomas is gone, we don't have anything that resembles 1C talent.

If the Blues had a potential 1C in the system, we would not NEED ONE in return for Thomas.

So Army at this time is scouting around for a young potential 1C, AKA a "younger Thomas". The unfortunate circumstance for Army is the THE BUYERS are generally NOT THE TEAMS with the large prospect pipelines. Nope, the BUYERS are teams like the Bruins that want to add one critical missing piece for another chance at a CUP. And THIS IS WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARISE!!! Why do the Bruins have the type of prospects that we don't have ourselves?!

So when Army makes a trade (if he makes a trade), ask yourself how the BUYER team has what we don't have? "Why do they have the young Thomas, but we don't"?.

Dalibor Dvorsky is his name. Say it.

Army is trading Thomas because our best players are outplayed too often by the other team's best players. Army's words, not mine.

Are you saying that Dalibor Dvorsky will be better than Thomas in the future? My understanding is that DD is projected to be a 2C, maybe.

They took him #10 OA and watched him dominate crease to crease at the world stage after playing with men at 17 to be a 2C?

The only reason this is even a discussion is because Dvo is making noise at the Olympics and headlines are buzzing saying his emergence makes Thomas expendable so here's a list of teams he could go to...

No one will be happier if DVO is a 1C. That's not the vibes I hear.