Cahokanut post_ wrote:
He was put in a prime spot with Parayko, and he wasn’t given a chance? Time to up your meds
Parayko was only playing 14 minutes a night ?
You Just throwing things out there. Who cares what role he was immediately able to step in on a better team, or his next role just a few months later on a better team. Nope you go with some made up opportunity with Parayko. Come on man. He isn't a God. He is a creator of habit.
Almost every deadline, if we are competing. Army gets a vet defender. All that's forgotten and Fowler's the proof of his golden glow.
Wrong again. Fowler was acquired in Dec long before the deadline, and we really weren’t competing at that time were we?
Also might want to check that 14 minute number again. Per hockey reference it looks closer to about 18, with several games well over 20.
While the timing may be off. Army was all in last year. And like almost Every year we've been in.......vet defender is the move.
But for all kinds of different reasons. Only Fowler counts for some.
[/quote]
How was he all in? If he was all in that would have meant he sent a top prospect or 1st rounders for a a player.
He traded for Fowler, that was essentially it. If that's an all in move, I'd hate to see what you consider something that Lightning did a few years ago.
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
It happens all the time. Look at Bennett in Calgary.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
It happens all the time. Look at Bennett in Calgary.
Sure. Other teams do it too. The GM that did that has since been fired (and rehired by TOR lol).
But people still need to accept that Mikkola was a misjudgment by DA.
I also remember when some people here were (very adamantly) proclaiming that Perunovich was better than Mikkola and that Lindstein's floor is Mikkola's ceiling.
Now that you all are actually seeing him play, I assume those positions have changed.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
I supported keeping Peru....big time....and I was wrong.
I wanted to keep Mikko.....and to me he showed the promise he is playing to today.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
Contract status and cap are also considerations. It’s not like we just looked at Mikkola and said “Nah”. Based on his performance to date and the fact that I’m sure Army had an inkling of his demands, it made sense to move him
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
How were they supposed to wait longer on Mikkola though? He was a UFA and could go to any team.
Also, while Mikkola looks good now, did he really back when he was with the Blues? My memory of him was he was a guy that struggled to make an outlet pass and wasn’t anything special. The first season he was finally a full-time NHLer, he was a UFA at the end of it. He just bloomed a bit later IMO.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
How were they supposed to wait longer on Mikkola though? He was a UFA and could go to any team.
Also, while Mikkola looks good now, did he really back when he was with the Blues? My memory of him was he was a guy that struggled to make an outlet pass and wasn’t anything special. The first season he was finally a full-time NHLer, he was a UFA at the end of it. He just bloomed a bit later IMO.
I haven’t heard he said he would not re-sign in STL and his contract demands certainly seemed reasonable, so the option was to not trade him for uncertain futures and re-sign him.
Dmen with size that can skate always have some value even if they can’t do much else. He always had those. Now the other parts of his game have emerged.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
How were they supposed to wait longer on Mikkola though? He was a UFA and could go to any team.
Also, while Mikkola looks good now, did he really back when he was with the Blues? My memory of him was he was a guy that struggled to make an outlet pass and wasn’t anything special. The first season he was finally a full-time NHLer, he was a UFA at the end of it. He just bloomed a bit later IMO.
I haven’t heard he said he would not re-sign in STL and his contract demands certainly seemed reasonable, so the option was to not trade him for uncertain futures and re-sign him.
Dmen with size that can skate always have some value even if they can’t do much else. He always had those. Now the other parts of his game have emerged.
So you’re simply assuming he would’ve re-signed here since you haven’t heard otherwise? I suppose I could say the opposite. It’s pretty rare for us fans to truly know where a player stood unless it somehow leaks to the media “so and so didn’t want to re-sign here.” or “so and so wanted to re-sign here but the team wasn’t interested.” But we don’t have that here with Mikkola, which would be the norm. That sort of stuff pretty rarely leaks.
My take is that he was likely looking for a change of scenery but I’m also just guessing. Call it a hunch. I doubt Army would just trade the guy for nothing.
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
How were they supposed to wait longer on Mikkola though? He was a UFA and could go to any team.
Also, while Mikkola looks good now, did he really back when he was with the Blues? My memory of him was he was a guy that struggled to make an outlet pass and wasn’t anything special. The first season he was finally a full-time NHLer, he was a UFA at the end of it. He just bloomed a bit later IMO.
I haven’t heard he said he would not re-sign in STL and his contract demands certainly seemed reasonable, so the option was to not trade him for uncertain futures and re-sign him.
Dmen with size that can skate always have some value even if they can’t do much else. He always had those. Now the other parts of his game have emerged.
So you’re simply assuming he would’ve re-signed here since you haven’t heard otherwise? I suppose I could say the opposite. It’s pretty rare for us fans to truly know where a player stood unless it somehow leaks to the media “so and so didn’t want to re-sign here.” or “so and so wanted to re-sign here but the team wasn’t interested.” But we don’t have that here with Mikkola, which would be the norm. That sort of stuff pretty rarely leaks.
My take is that he was likely looking for a change of scenery but I’m also just guessing. Call it a hunch. I doubt Army would just trade the guy for nothing.
Guys, come on now. What DO you know, indisputably?
1. Pending unrestricted free agent traded to Rangers.
2. Said player does NOT sign with the Rangers, either.
3. Said player signs with Florida as a free agent.
All the supposition at this point is a circular exercise, it will ALWAYS return you to the starting point, over and over. Mikkola was a pending free agent who ultimately went free agent, NOT from the Blues!
MiamiLaw wrote: ↑21 May 2025 16:53 pm
I honestly hate the word "hindsight" when evaluating a GM's decisions. An NHL GM is paid (handsomely) to anticipate things before they are obvious to everyone else in hindsight. That's how any leader is evaluated - whether, in hindsight, their decisions look good. Army is a mixed bag there, especially since the Cup win where I'd say it is more bad than good. The RFA sheets this summer really saved him.
Mikkola was a miss by the Blues. Not doubt about it. You can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why, at the time, the trade was made but he flatly would be a better option right now than others we have here and is paid much less. The Blues developed him and failed to find a place for him to succeed. I am not sure why they get a pass on that.
Was he? Yes he blossomed after he left here but he was given ample opportunities to succeed here and never did. People on here like to complain that we waited around too long for Perunovich to finally put it together, now we didn’t wait long enough?
Yes the Blues both waited way too long on Peru and not enough on Mikkola. Different situations. It’s doesn’t mean the Blues are always wrong but in these two cases, they were
How were they supposed to wait longer on Mikkola though? He was a UFA and could go to any team.
Also, while Mikkola looks good now, did he really back when he was with the Blues? My memory of him was he was a guy that struggled to make an outlet pass and wasn’t anything special. The first season he was finally a full-time NHLer, he was a UFA at the end of it. He just bloomed a bit later IMO.
I haven’t heard he said he would not re-sign in STL and his contract demands certainly seemed reasonable, so the option was to not trade him for uncertain futures and re-sign him.
Dmen with size that can skate always have some value even if they can’t do much else. He always had those. Now the other parts of his game have emerged.
So you’re simply assuming he would’ve re-signed here since you haven’t heard otherwise? I suppose I could say the opposite. It’s pretty rare for us fans to truly know where a player stood unless it somehow leaks to the media “so and so didn’t want to re-sign here.” or “so and so wanted to re-sign here but the team wasn’t interested.” But we don’t have that here with Mikkola, which would be the norm. That sort of stuff pretty rarely leaks.
My take is that he was likely looking for a change of scenery but I’m also just guessing. Call it a hunch. I doubt Army would just trade the guy for nothing.
Guys, come on now. What DO you know, indisputably?
1. Pending unrestricted free agent traded to Rangers.
2. Said player does NOT sign with the Rangers, either.
3. Said player signs with Florida as a free agent.
All the supposition at this point is a circular exercise, it will ALWAYS return you to the starting point, over and over. Mikkola was a pending free agent who ultimately went free agent, NOT from the Blues!
Good point but I’d love to know what efforts were made to gauge his interest before the trade
