Army's Departure and its impact on team

[St. Charles Bronson]

The draft is not an exact science, and there's no guarantee a top pick pans out as expected. Assuming you are lucky enough to avoid an injury that sets a player back, it often takes years for them to develop. Go over the past three drafts and look at the top five picks. How many of those 15 guys are superstars already? Two? Three? It takes multiple years of bad hockey coupled with multiple years of development to maybe, MAYBE get a superstar on your roster if your plan is to tank for picks. Plenty of teams are terrible for a decade or longer without substantially improving. You might also note that plenty of those superstars play for teams that have not won a Stanley Cup during their tenure. If what you actually want is to watch a guy put up big numbers, then go find the guy and root for his team and save your self the frustration of rooting for a team that isn't ever going to be what you want them to be.

It's not that the draft isn't important, but it's not a quick fix, and you can build a winning team without having one of the top five picks.

[Old_Goat]

The draft is not an exact science, and there's no guarantee a top pick pans out as expected. Assuming you are lucky enough to avoid an injury that sets a player back, it often takes years for them to develop. Go over the past three drafts and look at the top five picks. How many of those 15 guys are superstars already? Two? Three? It takes multiple years of bad hockey coupled with multiple years of development to maybe, MAYBE get a superstar on your roster if your plan is to tank for picks. Plenty of teams are terrible for a decade or longer without substantially improving. You might also note that plenty of those superstars play for teams that have not won a Stanley Cup during their tenure. If what you actually want is to watch a guy put up big numbers, then go find the guy and root for his team and save your self the frustration of rooting for a team that isn't ever going to be what you want them to be.

It's not that the draft isn't important, but it's not a quick fix, and you can build a winning team without having one of the top five picks.

For example, the Oilers -- Taylor Hall, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Nail Yakupov, Leon Draisaitl, Connor McDavid (4 Firsts and a Three). Those fans must be at each others' and their Managements' throats!

[a smell of green grass]

The draft is not an exact science, and there's no guarantee a top pick pans out as expected. Assuming you are lucky enough to avoid an injury that sets a player back, it often takes years for them to develop. Go over the past three drafts and look at the top five picks. How many of those 15 guys are superstars already? Two? Three? It takes multiple years of bad hockey coupled with multiple years of development to maybe, MAYBE get a superstar on your roster if your plan is to tank for picks. Plenty of teams are terrible for a decade or longer without substantially improving. You might also note that plenty of those superstars play for teams that have not won a Stanley Cup during their tenure. If what you actually want is to watch a guy put up big numbers, then go find the guy and root for his team and save your self the frustration of rooting for a team that isn't ever going to be what you want them to be.

It's not that the draft isn't important, but it's not a quick fix, and you can build a winning team without having one of the top five picks.

What percentage of teams winning the Stanley Cup in the last 15 years have had at least 1 TOP5 pick that they selected. The Blues in 2019 is one.

you can build a winning team without having one of the top five picks.

- the ONLY NHL City that believes this is St Louis. All the evidence points to needing elite talent to win.

If you don't like the odds of a TOP5 player making a difference, you are going to hate what the odds are for a player beyond the TOP10 are to make any kind of NHL impact. It's exceptionally hard to find an elite player. You improve your chances 500% by selecting TOP5.

[Jeff Goldblum]

You know, it just occurred to me that this team might benefit from some young elite talent. Maybe like a high draft pick or something. Somewhere around the 6th or 4th pick might be able to get this team over the hump. Anybody else have a similar opinion?

[Absolut]

RSVP maybe. I could use a few more threads from you
On this. Hard to get off this fence.

[callitwhatyouwant]

The draft is not an exact science, and there's no guarantee a top pick pans out as expected. Assuming you are lucky enough to avoid an injury that sets a player back, it often takes years for them to develop. Go over the past three drafts and look at the top five picks. How many of those 15 guys are superstars already? Two? Three? It takes multiple years of bad hockey coupled with multiple years of development to maybe, MAYBE get a superstar on your roster if your plan is to tank for picks. Plenty of teams are terrible for a decade or longer without substantially improving. You might also note that plenty of those superstars play for teams that have not won a Stanley Cup during their tenure. If what you actually want is to watch a guy put up big numbers, then go find the guy and root for his team and save your self the frustration of rooting for a team that isn't ever going to be what you want them to be.

It's not that the draft isn't important, but it's not a quick fix, and you can build a winning team without having one of the top five picks.

the trolls want a top 5 pick because that allows them to troll for years and years. Statistically speaking, if you are drafting in the top 5, you are going to be bottom feeding for a long time. There are outliers where a team had an absolute garbage year due to injury. But it's much more normal to be detroit, chicago, buffalo, san jose, phoenix/utah etc etc. where your 10 year old will start legally drinking before they see competitive hockey again.

Blues have a top 5 pick on the roster. His name is Brayden Schenn.

[DawgDad]

The draft is not an exact science, and there's no guarantee a top pick pans out as expected. Assuming you are lucky enough to avoid an injury that sets a player back, it often takes years for them to develop. Go over the past three drafts and look at the top five picks. How many of those 15 guys are superstars already? Two? Three? It takes multiple years of bad hockey coupled with multiple years of development to maybe, MAYBE get a superstar on your roster if your plan is to tank for picks. Plenty of teams are terrible for a decade or longer without substantially improving. You might also note that plenty of those superstars play for teams that have not won a Stanley Cup during their tenure. If what you actually want is to watch a guy put up big numbers, then go find the guy and root for his team and save your self the frustration of rooting for a team that isn't ever going to be what you want them to be.

It's not that the draft isn't important, but it's not a quick fix, and you can build a winning team without having one of the top five picks.

the trolls want a top 5 pick because that allows them to troll for years and years. Statistically speaking, if you are drafting in the top 5, you are going to be bottom feeding for a long time. There are outliers where a team had an absolute garbage year due to injury. But it's much more normal to be detroit, chicago, buffalo, san jose, phoenix/utah etc etc. where your 10 year old will start legally drinking before they see competitive hockey again.

Blues have a top 5 pick on the roster. His name is Brayden Schenn.

BINGO!

With all their #1 picks in-hand, looking more valuable as time passes, the Blues need NHL-ready prospects (emerging young players with talent) back in trade return. They need to pluck young talent from organizations desperate to make a run in 2026. Blues themselves have the draft-and-develop feeder primed with guys still in Juniors, college, AHL, with a succession of #1 picks on the horizon.

[Hazelwood72]

I still want to know how a team explains to the players and fans they are going to tank for the rest of the year or for several years. How are the players expected to go forward from that game to game?

St. Louis is a small market and I think the lack of attendance and income would set them into a negative spiral. If the owners sign off on that I guess it is possible but I don't see it. If you have a single billionaire owner like Steve Cohen and the Mets you can do what you want and lose money for years. Blues don't have that.

Blackhawks could also do it- in that market they will sell out Hawks and Cubs no matter how the team is doing- much bigger market. Wrigley is a fun experience no matter who is winning.

Actually, the Blackhawks DIDN’T sell out United Center when they were bad. Per hockeydb.com, their average per game attendance from 2000 through 2007 was 14996, 15568, 14794, 13253, 13318, 12727, 16814. In 2008, it went up to 22247 after Bill Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz took over, and players like Kane and Towes started to do well. Pre-2010, United Center held 20,505 for hockey (not including SRO).

It had got so bad that the great Hawks announcer, Pat Foley, got fired by Bill Wirtz because Foley dared to call out the Hawks ineptitude on broadcasts. (Foley was a gem - great play by play man). After Old Man Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz hired Foley back.

I lived in the Chicago suburbs for 6 years back in the Chicago Stadium days (1988-1994). I’ve always felt that the Hawks have a passionate core of fans, but they are a distant 5th in the hearts of average Chicagoans behind the Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Sox in that order. When I lived there, the Bulls were 2nd in the Michael Jordan era.

At work, I had few fellow fans to talk hockey there. They talked Bears and Bulls mostly.

Moral of my long winded story is that even the Blackhawks aren’t immune to poor attendance when the team is really (bleep). And the Wirtz family aren’t zillionaires like other owners.

[hotrivets]

I still want to know how a team explains to the players and fans they are going to tank for the rest of the year or for several years. How are the players expected to go forward from that game to game?

St. Louis is a small market and I think the lack of attendance and income would set them into a negative spiral. If the owners sign off on that I guess it is possible but I don't see it. If you have a single billionaire owner like Steve Cohen and the Mets you can do what you want and lose money for years. Blues don't have that.

Blackhawks could also do it- in that market they will sell out Hawks and Cubs no matter how the team is doing- much bigger market. Wrigley is a fun experience no matter who is winning.

Actually, the Blackhawks DIDN’T sell out United Center when they were bad. Per hockeydb.com, their average per game attendance from 2000 through 2007 was 14996, 15568, 14794, 13253, 13318, 12727, 16814. In 2008, it went up to 22247 after Bill Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz took over, and players like Kane and Towes started to do well. Pre-2010, United Center held 20,505 for hockey (not including SRO).

It had got so bad that the great Hawks announcer, Pat Foley, got fired by Bill Wirtz because Foley dared to call out the Hawks ineptitude on broadcasts. (Foley was a gem - great play by play man). After Old Man Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz hired Foley back.

I lived in the Chicago suburbs for 6 years back in the Chicago Stadium days (1988-1994). I’ve always felt that the Hawks have a passionate core of fans, but they are a distant 5th in the hearts of average Chicagoans behind the Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Sox in that order. When I lived there, the Bulls were 2nd in the Michael Jordan era.

At work, I had few fellow fans to talk hockey there. They talked Bears and Bulls mostly.

Moral of my long winded story is that even the Blackhawks aren’t immune to poor attendance when the team is really (bleep). And the Wirtz family aren’t zillionaires like other owners.

So in a MUCH smaller market imagine the number of empty seats we (and the owners) could be seeing if they tank- or just continue to play horrible hockey.

[a smell of green grass]

What would draw better in St Louis? These are our 2 options as I see it.

1) 15 guys carrying lunchboxes that win 45% of their games, and not one marquis player.

2) 14 guys carrying lunchboxes that win 45% of their games, and one young exceptional marquis talent. And I'm not talking about a guy that needs to get used to American Ice, gain 40 more pounds, skate faster, or develop the will to be tough.

Option 2 is the better route because AT LEAST there is hope for the future.

[somni]

I still want to know how a team explains to the players and fans they are going to tank for the rest of the year or for several years. How are the players expected to go forward from that game to game?

St. Louis is a small market and I think the lack of attendance and income would set them into a negative spiral. If the owners sign off on that I guess it is possible but I don't see it. If you have a single billionaire owner like Steve Cohen and the Mets you can do what you want and lose money for years. Blues don't have that.

Blackhawks could also do it- in that market they will sell out Hawks and Cubs no matter how the team is doing- much bigger market. Wrigley is a fun experience no matter who is winning.

Actually, the Blackhawks DIDN’T sell out United Center when they were bad. Per hockeydb.com, their average per game attendance from 2000 through 2007 was 14996, 15568, 14794, 13253, 13318, 12727, 16814. In 2008, it went up to 22247 after Bill Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz took over, and players like Kane and Towes started to do well. Pre-2010, United Center held 20,505 for hockey (not including SRO).

It had got so bad that the great Hawks announcer, Pat Foley, got fired by Bill Wirtz because Foley dared to call out the Hawks ineptitude on broadcasts. (Foley was a gem - great play by play man). After Old Man Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz hired Foley back.

I lived in the Chicago suburbs for 6 years back in the Chicago Stadium days (1988-1994). I’ve always felt that the Hawks have a passionate core of fans, but they are a distant 5th in the hearts of average Chicagoans behind the Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Sox in that order. When I lived there, the Bulls were 2nd in the Michael Jordan era.

At work, I had few fellow fans to talk hockey there. They talked Bears and Bulls mostly.

Moral of my long winded story is that even the Blackhawks aren’t immune to poor attendance when the team is really (bleep). And the Wirtz family aren’t zillionaires like other owners.

Good write up. I guess Éric Dazé didn't draw many fans as they hoped.

[Hazelwood72]

I still want to know how a team explains to the players and fans they are going to tank for the rest of the year or for several years. How are the players expected to go forward from that game to game?

St. Louis is a small market and I think the lack of attendance and income would set them into a negative spiral. If the owners sign off on that I guess it is possible but I don't see it. If you have a single billionaire owner like Steve Cohen and the Mets you can do what you want and lose money for years. Blues don't have that.

Blackhawks could also do it- in that market they will sell out Hawks and Cubs no matter how the team is doing- much bigger market. Wrigley is a fun experience no matter who is winning.

Actually, the Blackhawks DIDN’T sell out United Center when they were bad. Per hockeydb.com, their average per game attendance from 2000 through 2007 was 14996, 15568, 14794, 13253, 13318, 12727, 16814. In 2008, it went up to 22247 after Bill Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz took over, and players like Kane and Towes started to do well. Pre-2010, United Center held 20,505 for hockey (not including SRO).

It had got so bad that the great Hawks announcer, Pat Foley, got fired by Bill Wirtz because Foley dared to call out the Hawks ineptitude on broadcasts. (Foley was a gem - great play by play man). After Old Man Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz hired Foley back.

I lived in the Chicago suburbs for 6 years back in the Chicago Stadium days (1988-1994). I’ve always felt that the Hawks have a passionate core of fans, but they are a distant 5th in the hearts of average Chicagoans behind the Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Sox in that order. When I lived there, the Bulls were 2nd in the Michael Jordan era.

At work, I had few fellow fans to talk hockey there. They talked Bears and Bulls mostly.

Moral of my long winded story is that even the Blackhawks aren’t immune to poor attendance when the team is really (bleep). And the Wirtz family aren’t zillionaires like other owners.

So in a MUCH smaller market imagine the number of empty seats we (and the owners) could be seeing if they tank- or just continue to play horrible hockey.

Totally agree with you on that Rivetman! The Blues have had stretches of poor attendance, and interest would decline during a total rebuild. Unfortunately, we are in a Catch-22 situation. Armstrong has mostly pulled the wrong levers for the last 5 years and we are lacking in personnel. We need a significant change in players and it’s doubtful it can be done very quickly via trades or free agency.

[Rollin' on the River]

The worst thing of this entire situation is that it’s not a clean break with Armstrong. When he “retires” it needs to be a completely new face and new vision. This is going to be Steen as GM with Armstrong getting the final say. Nothing will change mindset wise, nothing will change in terms is the way they draft. They really should’ve went with a new voice and new direction.

The Blues need to be very careful here. Currently the Cardinals and their fanbase are in a dispute, Chaim Bloom looks to be trying to change that. The Blues are headed for a similar situation with their fanbase if things don’t change relatively quickly and we keep seeing the same results.

[skilles]

I reckon there is one thing worse than tanking on purpose and that is spending to the cap and tanking by doing a really bad job

[Bacchk29]

I still want to know how a team explains to the players and fans they are going to tank for the rest of the year or for several years. How are the players expected to go forward from that game to game?

St. Louis is a small market and I think the lack of attendance and income would set them into a negative spiral. If the owners sign off on that I guess it is possible but I don't see it. If you have a single billionaire owner like Steve Cohen and the Mets you can do what you want and lose money for years. Blues don't have that.

Blackhawks could also do it- in that market they will sell out Hawks and Cubs no matter how the team is doing- much bigger market. Wrigley is a fun experience no matter who is winning.

Actually, the Blackhawks DIDN’T sell out United Center when they were bad. Per hockeydb.com, their average per game attendance from 2000 through 2007 was 14996, 15568, 14794, 13253, 13318, 12727, 16814. In 2008, it went up to 22247 after Bill Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz took over, and players like Kane and Towes started to do well. Pre-2010, United Center held 20,505 for hockey (not including SRO).

It had got so bad that the great Hawks announcer, Pat Foley, got fired by Bill Wirtz because Foley dared to call out the Hawks ineptitude on broadcasts. (Foley was a gem - great play by play man). After Old Man Wirtz died, Rocky Wirtz hired Foley back.

I lived in the Chicago suburbs for 6 years back in the Chicago Stadium days (1988-1994). I’ve always felt that the Hawks have a passionate core of fans, but they are a distant 5th in the hearts of average Chicagoans behind the Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Sox in that order. When I lived there, the Bulls were 2nd in the Michael Jordan era.

At work, I had few fellow fans to talk hockey there. They talked Bears and Bulls mostly.

Moral of my long winded story is that even the Blackhawks aren’t immune to poor attendance when the team is really (bleep). And the Wirtz family aren’t zillionaires like other owners.

So in a MUCH smaller market imagine the number of empty seats we (and the owners) could be seeing if they tank- or just continue to play horrible hockey.

Totally agree with you on that Rivetman! The Blues have had stretches of poor attendance, and interest would decline during a total rebuild. Unfortunately, we are in a Catch-22 situation. Armstrong has mostly pulled the wrong levers for the last 5 years and we are lacking in personnel. We need a significant change in players and it’s doubtful it can be done very quickly via trades or free agency.

If the fanbase buys in to what you’re doing, they’ll show up. Problem is, Army has sold us a bill of goods with the retool business. Hard to trust what he says at this point. BTW besides desperation moves like Fabbri, where’s the player movement? Certainly he’s still not thinking this group is turning the corner.

[BleedingBleu]

I hope they sneak in the 8th seed and get swept in the first round and have a draft pick in the late teens.