I'm curious, at this point where do you guys stand on Berube being the head coach for the Blues going forward?

If he interviews better than everyone else this summer, fine, whatever. He's done a good job, but I want a very wide and exhaustive search. Most teams always say that's the case, but end up just hiring from a pool of retreads. I'd be furious if he got extended before the season ended or without a bunch of other interviewees coming in for a serious look. I'd much prefer a new voice with no ties to the organization, no offense to Berube.

I'm absolutely on board with the idea of keeping Berube as coach. I thought he got a raw deal in Philly, and always believed he would make a good nhl head coach. Melrose is echoing just what Chief said from the getgo. The team needed to believe they could win. Berube didn't come in like a windstorm, and change everything, which would have only added to the feeling of uncertainty. Unlike a less secure temporary coach might have done, he made gradual baby step changes, giving some players the room to grow, and discovering who simply would never cut it.
If I was a player, I would bust my ass for a coach like Berube. You always know where you stand with him. He is clear and very direct in what he wants done, and what he doesn't like to see, while seemingly aware of when players need a pat on the back instead of a kick in the ass.
The thing I didn't like about Yeo was, he seemed to be one of these coaches, (bosses in the workplace) who just yells, "Do Better!" leaving the how to, up to the player, which only adds to the confusion and insecurity. Berube didn't overload these guys with grand tactics. It doesn't take a mental giant or ten years in the league to get what he wants done. Play north/south hockey, no one and done hockey in the offensive zone. Time of possession in the offensive zone pays off at both ends. Dont turn the puck over at either blue line. Take the body, and protect your goalie.
He has apparently found a way to communicate his thinking to Tarasenko because we are seeing a more consistent effort. His diving goal last night was a perfect example of Berube's emphasizing that he needs to go to the net more.
Yeah, it's my hope that Berube is named the fulltime head coach of the Blues.
(Ok, nobody is perfect, so I should list his shortcomings also. Thus far, he has been unable to keep Petro from injurying teammates, and turning the puck over in places where the puck always seems to end up in our own net. Get with it, Chief. Get that shit straightened out!)

Berube has done a fine job, but I think a big part of the turnaround was ditching Yeo. That hiring set the team back at least a year and was, in my opinion, probably the worst move that Armstrong has made as a GM. It’s possible that Hitch had to go for the team to progess, but to push him out for a mediocre-at-best retread (and to do it in such a clumsy fashion) was a huge mistake.

If the Blues catch fire and make a serious run this year, I could go for extending Berube, but I don’t want to award him the job simply because he’s outperformed his awful predecessor. Here’s hoping he can force the organization’s hand with his performance.

Problem is the team is still in transition. Year 3 now and the team is still more suited to play the heavy style of game. The GM is the issue for putting this team thru the Bermuda Triangle. If Army isn't going to get aggressive and make changes then Berube is the guy to sign. Give him a 2 yr extension.

Without making moves and getting some youth, speed and picks into the mix, bringing in a new coach for these bunch of clowns makes no sense.

I'm ok with it but i'd give him a two year deal max. Hopefully Army has learned his lesson on jumping the gun on extensions.

Berube has helped them recover from their directionless play under Yeo, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best guy going forward. Just better than Yeo was.

NHLTIM wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:55 pm I'm ok with it but i'd give him a two year deal max. Hopefully Army has learned his lesson on jumping the gun on extensions.

This is about where I'm at, but I'd want that 2 year deal after an extended search this summer. Even if the Blues make the playoffs, unless they reach the WCF/SCF, I don't think I'd want Berube extended until other coaches are interviewed.

I really like Berube. I think a hard nosed no-nonsense guy was exactly what this group needed at the time he took over. They needed discipline and leadership since they obviously had none in the room.
That being said, I wonder if he has a pretty short shelf life. I can see his methods wearing thin on the players very quickly over the course of a couple of years. Also, the PP still looks awful.

RAFritchey wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:26 pm Berube has helped them recover from their directionless play under Yeo, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best guy going forward. Just better than Yeo was.

Exactly.

I was listening to an interview with Scotty Bowman on the way into work this morning and they touched on the subject of Yzerman's future, and it got me thinking about what Stevie Y did for the Lightning organization. He made a lot of good moves to get them where they are, but the most important thing he did was to define a direction for the entire organization, top to bottom. Obviously that team has more high end skill to build around, but all of their personnel and development decisions are filtered through the concept of how they want to play the game. They draft based on certain skills and they develop those skills in their off season programs and in their AHL development.

I'm not sure Army is the right guy to instill that sort of vision and organizational certainty for this club, but I do have very strong feelings that the identity needs to be a club that plays faster and is better in transition than what we have built before under Army and Hitch. And I have even stronger feelings that Berube is not the guy to lead the NHL roster down that same path. He may have been able to restore this team's confidence, but I don't believe he is anywhere close to the guy to get this team to the next level.

I think Berube is a good coach - I think people here are clamoring for a guy like Darryl Sutter, which Sutter's tactics are even rougher than Berube's. I think they're cut from the same basic mold.

If Berube does get the job, then if I'm him, I tell Armstrong that "I'm bringing in the assistants that I want..."

I think Van Ryn has to go.

MattyIce wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:08 pm I really like Berube. I think a hard nosed no-nonsense guy was exactly what this group needed at the time he took over. They needed discipline and leadership since they obviously had none in the room.
That being said, I wonder if he has a pretty short shelf life. I can see his methods wearing thin on the players very quickly over the course of a couple of years. Also, the PP still looks awful.

I could be wrong, but I'm not really worried about Berube having a short shelf life. He really doesn't come across as the guy who comes in the locker room, throwing things, and screaming. No doubt he's direct, but I've never heard any report of his having demeaned any player. He seems ready to offer praise as easily as criticism. Certainly his critque of the teams performance after games, has been pretty much spot on, without any hysterics or grand standing. In short, some coaches are feared. A few are deeply respected. I think Berube is truly respected in that room, and perhaps when necessary, a little feared.
Who knows what coach will be fired before next season, but given a choice between Berube, and any others available now, including Q, I would keep Berube.

Jmo

barnburner wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:54 pm

MattyIce wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:08 pm I really like Berube. I think a hard nosed no-nonsense guy was exactly what this group needed at the time he took over. They needed discipline and leadership since they obviously had none in the room.
That being said, I wonder if he has a pretty short shelf life. I can see his methods wearing thin on the players very quickly over the course of a couple of years. Also, the PP still looks awful.

I could be wrong, but I'm not really worried about Berube having a short shelf life. He really doesn't come across as the guy who comes in the locker room, throwing things, and screaming. No doubt he's direct, but I've never heard any report of his having demeaned any player. He seems ready to offer praise as easily as criticism. Certainly his critque of the teams performance after games, has been pretty much spot on, without any hysterics or grand standing. In short, some coaches are feared. A few are deeply respected. I think Berube is truly respected in that room, and perhaps when necessary, a little feared.
Who knows what coach will be fired before next season, but given a choice between Berube, and any others available now, including Q, I would keep Berube.

Jmo

I want Quenneville (sp) all day and twice on Sunday if he's an option. Other than that your spot on burner.

BlueinNy wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:05 pm

barnburner wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:54 pm

MattyIce wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:08 pm I really like Berube. I think a hard nosed no-nonsense guy was exactly what this group needed at the time he took over. They needed discipline and leadership since they obviously had none in the room.
That being said, I wonder if he has a pretty short shelf life. I can see his methods wearing thin on the players very quickly over the course of a couple of years. Also, the PP still looks awful.

I could be wrong, but I'm not really worried about Berube having a short shelf life. He really doesn't come across as the guy who comes in the locker room, throwing things, and screaming. No doubt he's direct, but I've never heard any report of his having demeaned any player. He seems ready to offer praise as easily as criticism. Certainly his critque of the teams performance after games, has been pretty much spot on, without any hysterics or grand standing. In short, some coaches are feared. A few are deeply respected. I think Berube is truly respected in that room, and perhaps when necessary, a little feared.
Who knows what coach will be fired before next season, but given a choice between Berube, and any others available now, including Q, I would keep Berube.

Jmo

I want Quenneville (sp) all day and twice on Sunday if he's an option. Other than that your spot on burner.

I suspect most Blues fans would prefer Q as their first choice, certainly a reasonable selection. It will be an interesting off season to see what Army does. The success of this coaching hire will probably dictate his future with the Blues.

barnburner wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:54 pm

MattyIce wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:08 pm I really like Berube. I think a hard nosed no-nonsense guy was exactly what this group needed at the time he took over. They needed discipline and leadership since they obviously had none in the room.
That being said, I wonder if he has a pretty short shelf life. I can see his methods wearing thin on the players very quickly over the course of a couple of years. Also, the PP still looks awful.

I could be wrong, but I'm not really worried about Berube having a short shelf life. He really doesn't come across as the guy who comes in the locker room, throwing things, and screaming. No doubt he's direct, but I've never heard any report of his having demeaned any player. He seems ready to offer praise as easily as criticism. Certainly his critque of the teams performance after games, has been pretty much spot on, without any hysterics or grand standing. In short, some coaches are feared. A few are deeply respected. I think Berube is truly respected in that room, and perhaps when necessary, a little feared.
Who knows what coach will be fired before next season, but given a choice between Berube, and any others available now, including Q, I would keep Berube.

Jmo

I hope you are correct, because I really like the attitude he brings to the club. I really wanted Sutter when Yeo was under pressure, but Berube seems to bring a lot of the attributes that I wanted out of Sutter.
Q is intriguing because he has done it well for so long. When you see how Trotz has transformed the Islanders even with losing their top player, you realize how important a coach can be. Stanley Cups on a resume can't be overlooked.

MattyIce wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:39 am

barnburner wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:54 pm

MattyIce wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:08 pm I really like Berube. I think a hard nosed no-nonsense guy was exactly what this group needed at the time he took over. They needed discipline and leadership since they obviously had none in the room.
That being said, I wonder if he has a pretty short shelf life. I can see his methods wearing thin on the players very quickly over the course of a couple of years. Also, the PP still looks awful.

I could be wrong, but I'm not really worried about Berube having a short shelf life. He really doesn't come across as the guy who comes in the locker room, throwing things, and screaming. No doubt he's direct, but I've never heard any report of his having demeaned any player. He seems ready to offer praise as easily as criticism. Certainly his critque of the teams performance after games, has been pretty much spot on, without any hysterics or grand standing. In short, some coaches are feared. A few are deeply respected. I think Berube is truly respected in that room, and perhaps when necessary, a little feared.
Who knows what coach will be fired before next season, but given a choice between Berube, and any others available now, including Q, I would keep Berube.

Jmo

I hope you are correct, because I really like the attitude he brings to the club. I really wanted Sutter when Yeo was under pressure, but Berube seems to bring a lot of the attributes that I wanted out of Sutter.
Q is intriguing because he has done it well for so long. When you see how Trotz has transformed the Islanders even with losing their top player, you realize how important a coach can be. Stanley Cups on a resume can't be overlooked.

I wanted Sutter also at the time. I agree that Stanley Cups on a resume can't be overlooked. By the same token, I believe they shouldn't be neon signs that blind the gm/owner into hiring a coach without considering a lot of other factors. Remember when we fired Joel Quenneville, and hired Stanley Cup winning Mike Keenan?
There is a lot about Quenneville that I like. I've always been a big fan of Trotz. But, how many Cups did Q win here, or in Colorado? How many Cups did Trotz win in Nashville? Were Q and Trotz better coaches in Chicago and Washington than they were in their previous jobs? Or, were they finally given the level of elite talent that enabled them to succeed? I'm of the opinion that there were a number of other coaches who could have won Cups with those teams.
As Bill P and Missouri Mook mentioned, I've reached the point to where I believe that if it's a Cup we want, then perhaps a search for the best GM candidate, might be more important than the hiring of a coach.
I don't know if Berube is the guy to win a Cup here or not. Quite honestly, pick ANY coach in the nhl, minor leagues, or college, and I'll make the same statement about them. For this team to rise to that level, some very smart personnel decisions are going to have to be made, and I'm not sure Army is the guy to pull the right strings. I'll confess that as time marches on, I've reached the point in life to where I no longer have expectations of ever seeing a Stanley Cup in my lifetime. At this point, I'll settle for watching a good team, playing sound smart hockey, and getting at least into the second round of the playoffs, year after year.
I think there are a number of coaches who can make that happen, including Quenneville, Sutter, and Berube. Quenneville and Sutter, with Cups on their resumes, would if interested, insist on high figure and long term contracts. Berube would come cheaper, and with fewer guaranteed years. If you believe that Quenneville, Sutter, or ? can take this team to a Cup with Army as GM, then it's money well spent. Personally, without the right critical personnel moves being made, I doubt you'd see much difference in the performance of this team, with any competent nhl coach.
But then, keep in mind that I bought into the Keenan Kool-Aid, and believed he would bring us a Cup.....

I may be in the minority here, but I would hate a Sutter hiring. Yes, he's got the Cups and a strong resume, but the style of play he used in LA is brutally outdated now. This team is slow enough as is, and I don't want them getting any slower due to structure. While it wouldn't be my first choice, I'd much prefer retaining Berube to Sutter.

I know I've run through the analysis multiple times before over the years, but Chicago and LA both had a stretch where they each had like 9 top-15 draft picks in 9-10 consecutive years. Some of those picks were Anze Kopitar, Drew Doughty, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, etc, some became assets to trade to other teams (Tuomo Ruutu, Cam Barker, Jack Skille, Brayden Schenn), some didn't pan out at all (Lauri Tukonnen? Thomas Hickey? Colton Teubert? Pavel Vorobiev? Mikhail Yakubov?). But having that many swings at top talent will net even a merely decent GM plenty of 'assets' to work with.

Similarly, Pittsburgh had it's string of top-5-drafted talent, some who are still leaders on the team (Crosby, Malkin), some who helped in at least one of their recent cup runs (M-A Fleury, Jordan Staal), and another who was moved for other assets (Ryan Whitney). 5 years in a row drafting in the top 5, especially when you can get back-to-back 'generational' players like Crosby and Malkin, will go a long way towards shoring up a franchise, too.

Those three teams have one 8 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Finals.

Even last year's winners, Washington, had 6 draft picks in top-15, going back to Ovechkin at #1 overall, and a few more in the mid-1st round.

(Some might say that Edmonton is proof this doesn't always work. IMHO, that just points up the complete and utter incompetence of Edmonton's management.)

Since drafting Marty Reasoner at #14 in 1996, the Blues have had FOUR total draft picks in the first half of the first round (Erik Johnson, Lars Eller, Alex Pietrangelo, and Jaden Schwartz) , with a few more in the 15-20 range (Barrett Jackman at #17, Marek Schwarz at #17, Ian Cole at #18, David Rundblad at #17, Vladimir Tarasenko at #16). No where near the 'blue chip' assets to start with. As fans, we like to get hyped about guys like Robert Thomas (drafted at #20) and Jordan Kyrou (Drafted at #35) but they're much more longshots to become bona-fide 'star' players than we like to admit.

Does this mean the Blues CAN'T win the Stanley Cup in the near future? Not necessarily, but I don't think any new coach, or even new coach+GM combo, will be able to waltz in here and craft an instant cup-winner unless we have some surprises (Lopsided deals, players severly out-performing their projections, etc) and luck as well.

RAFritchey wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:26 pm Berube has helped them recover from their directionless play under Yeo, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best guy going forward. Just better than Yeo was.

100% this.

The bar has been set pretty low. I want a shot at a premiere coaching candidate.

RAFritchey wrote: I know I've run through the analysis multiple times before over the years, but Chicago and LA both had a stretch where they each had like 9 top-15 draft picks in 9-10 consecutive years. Some of those picks were Anze Kopitar, Drew Doughty, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, etc, some became assets to trade to other teams (Tuomo Ruutu, Cam Barker, Jack Skille, Brayden Schenn), some didn't pan out at all (Lauri Tukonnen? Thomas Hickey? Colton Teubert? Pavel Vorobiev? Mikhail Yakubov?). But having that many swings at top talent will net even a merely decent GM plenty of 'assets' to work with.

Similarly, Pittsburgh had it's string of top-5-drafted talent, some who are still leaders on the team (Crosby, Malkin), some who helped in at least one of their recent cup runs (M-A Fleury, Jordan Staal), and another who was moved for other assets (Ryan Whitney). 5 years in a row drafting in the top 5, especially when you can get back-to-back 'generational' players like Crosby and Malkin, will go a long way towards shoring up a franchise, too.

Those three teams have one 8 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Finals.

Even last year's winners, Washington, had 6 draft picks in top-15, going back to Ovechkin at #1 overall, and a few more in the mid-1st round.

(Some might say that Edmonton is proof this doesn't always work. IMHO, that just points up the complete and utter incompetence of Edmonton's management.)

Since drafting Marty Reasoner at #14 in 1996, the Blues have had FOUR total draft picks in the first half of the first round (Erik Johnson, Lars Eller, Alex Pietrangelo, and Jaden Schwartz) , with a few more in the 15-20 range (Barrett Jackman at #17, Marek Schwarz at #17, Ian Cole at #18, David Rundblad at #17, Vladimir Tarasenko at #16). No where near the 'blue chip' assets to start with. As fans, we like to get hyped about guys like Robert Thomas (drafted at #20) and Jordan Kyrou (Drafted at #35) but they're much more longshots to become bona-fide 'star' players than we like to admit.

Does this mean the Blues CAN'T win the Stanley Cup in the near future? Not necessarily, but I don't think any new coach, or even new coach+GM combo, will be able to waltz in here and craft an instant cup-winner unless we have some surprises (Lopsided deals, players severly out-performing their projections, etc) and luck as well.

Great post. This is exactly why the Blues have never won a cup. Being mediocre enough to make the playoffs every year = mediocre draft position = mediocre top end talent. Most of the time, teams have to be bad enough for a while to land top players who can carry you to a cup

ZBLUES_85 wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:14 pm

RAFritchey wrote: I know I've run through the analysis multiple times before over the years, but Chicago and LA both had a stretch where they each had like 9 top-15 draft picks in 9-10 consecutive years. Some of those picks were Anze Kopitar, Drew Doughty, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, etc, some became assets to trade to other teams (Tuomo Ruutu, Cam Barker, Jack Skille, Brayden Schenn), some didn't pan out at all (Lauri Tukonnen? Thomas Hickey? Colton Teubert? Pavel Vorobiev? Mikhail Yakubov?). But having that many swings at top talent will net even a merely decent GM plenty of 'assets' to work with.

Similarly, Pittsburgh had it's string of top-5-drafted talent, some who are still leaders on the team (Crosby, Malkin), some who helped in at least one of their recent cup runs (M-A Fleury, Jordan Staal), and another who was moved for other assets (Ryan Whitney). 5 years in a row drafting in the top 5, especially when you can get back-to-back 'generational' players like Crosby and Malkin, will go a long way towards shoring up a franchise, too.

Those three teams have one 8 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Finals.

Even last year's winners, Washington, had 6 draft picks in top-15, going back to Ovechkin at #1 overall, and a few more in the mid-1st round.

(Some might say that Edmonton is proof this doesn't always work. IMHO, that just points up the complete and utter incompetence of Edmonton's management.)

Since drafting Marty Reasoner at #14 in 1996, the Blues have had FOUR total draft picks in the first half of the first round (Erik Johnson, Lars Eller, Alex Pietrangelo, and Jaden Schwartz) , with a few more in the 15-20 range (Barrett Jackman at #17, Marek Schwarz at #17, Ian Cole at #18, David Rundblad at #17, Vladimir Tarasenko at #16). No where near the 'blue chip' assets to start with. As fans, we like to get hyped about guys like Robert Thomas (drafted at #20) and Jordan Kyrou (Drafted at #35) but they're much more longshots to become bona-fide 'star' players than we like to admit.

Does this mean the Blues CAN'T win the Stanley Cup in the near future? Not necessarily, but I don't think any new coach, or even new coach+GM combo, will be able to waltz in here and craft an instant cup-winner unless we have some surprises (Lopsided deals, players severly out-performing their projections, etc) and luck as well.

Great post. This is exactly why the Blues have never won a cup. Being mediocre enough to make the playoffs every year = mediocre draft position = mediocre top end talent. Most of the time, teams have to be bad enough for a while to land top players who can carry you to a cup

The high draft picks only help when you get them right, and part of that is luck. They had the right idea after the lockout. From 06-08 the Blues had 6 first round picks, including number 1 and 4 overall. They got exactly 1 All-Star out of that group in Petro. EJ made an all-star team with Colorado a couple years ago, but that didn't help us. I'm not even trying to rip on those particularly picks, as its been discussed to death on a variety of forums. Edmonton isn't the only example of squandering those high picks, look at the Islanders, Avalanche, Panthers, and probably a few others that all had multiple high picks over a fairly short period with nothing to show for it. Hell, even if you get those high picks right, its no guarantee they work. Look at Tampa. They drafted Stamkos first overall in 2008 and Hedman first in 2009, both absolute home run picks, but here we are 10 years later and they're still looking for their first Cup with that group (though the very well may finally get it this year).

Obviously it helps to be able to draft some superstar talent and get some cheap production for a few years, but with the way the young guys are starting to get paid more earlier in their career (see Matthews signing), I wonder if the Hawks/Penguins model of team building is on the way out.

BluesSK wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:10 pm

RAFritchey wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:26 pm Berube has helped them recover from their directionless play under Yeo, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best guy going forward. Just better than Yeo was.

100% this.

The bar has been set pretty low. I want a shot at a premiere coaching candidate.

Who would you consider to be a premier candidate?

barnburner wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:49 pm

BluesSK wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:10 pm

RAFritchey wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:26 pm Berube has helped them recover from their directionless play under Yeo, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best guy going forward. Just better than Yeo was.

100% this.

The bar has been set pretty low. I want a shot at a premiere coaching candidate.

Who would you consider to be a premier candidate?

I would like to see the Blues take a run at securing Quenneville and failing that Daryl Sutter. Sutter has had a lot of success and not just with the LA Cup teams. If this team makes the playoffs Armstrong will probably save his job but he needs to make a splash in the coaching search unless Berube can take the team on a real strong run.

Dave's a mess wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:34 pm

ZBLUES_85 wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:14 pm

RAFritchey wrote: I know I've run through the analysis multiple times before over the years, but Chicago and LA both had a stretch where they each had like 9 top-15 draft picks in 9-10 consecutive years. Some of those picks were Anze Kopitar, Drew Doughty, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, etc, some became assets to trade to other teams (Tuomo Ruutu, Cam Barker, Jack Skille, Brayden Schenn), some didn't pan out at all (Lauri Tukonnen? Thomas Hickey? Colton Teubert? Pavel Vorobiev? Mikhail Yakubov?). But having that many swings at top talent will net even a merely decent GM plenty of 'assets' to work with.

Similarly, Pittsburgh had it's string of top-5-drafted talent, some who are still leaders on the team (Crosby, Malkin), some who helped in at least one of their recent cup runs (M-A Fleury, Jordan Staal), and another who was moved for other assets (Ryan Whitney). 5 years in a row drafting in the top 5, especially when you can get back-to-back 'generational' players like Crosby and Malkin, will go a long way towards shoring up a franchise, too.

Those three teams have one 8 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Finals.

Even last year's winners, Washington, had 6 draft picks in top-15, going back to Ovechkin at #1 overall, and a few more in the mid-1st round.

(Some might say that Edmonton is proof this doesn't always work. IMHO, that just points up the complete and utter incompetence of Edmonton's management.)

Since drafting Marty Reasoner at #14 in 1996, the Blues have had FOUR total draft picks in the first half of the first round (Erik Johnson, Lars Eller, Alex Pietrangelo, and Jaden Schwartz) , with a few more in the 15-20 range (Barrett Jackman at #17, Marek Schwarz at #17, Ian Cole at #18, David Rundblad at #17, Vladimir Tarasenko at #16). No where near the 'blue chip' assets to start with. As fans, we like to get hyped about guys like Robert Thomas (drafted at #20) and Jordan Kyrou (Drafted at #35) but they're much more longshots to become bona-fide 'star' players than we like to admit.

Does this mean the Blues CAN'T win the Stanley Cup in the near future? Not necessarily, but I don't think any new coach, or even new coach+GM combo, will be able to waltz in here and craft an instant cup-winner unless we have some surprises (Lopsided deals, players severly out-performing their projections, etc) and luck as well.

Great post. This is exactly why the Blues have never won a cup. Being mediocre enough to make the playoffs every year = mediocre draft position = mediocre top end talent. Most of the time, teams have to be bad enough for a while to land top players who can carry you to a cup

The high draft picks only help when you get them right, and part of that is luck. They had the right idea after the lockout. From 06-08 the Blues had 6 first round picks, including number 1 and 4 overall. They got exactly 1 All-Star out of that group in Petro. EJ made an all-star team with Colorado a couple years ago, but that didn't help us. I'm not even trying to rip on those particularly picks, as its been discussed to death on a variety of forums. Edmonton isn't the only example of squandering those high picks, look at the Islanders, Avalanche, Panthers, and probably a few others that all had multiple high picks over a fairly short period with nothing to show for it. Hell, even if you get those high picks right, its no guarantee they work. Look at Tampa. They drafted Stamkos first overall in 2008 and Hedman first in 2009, both absolute home run picks, but here we are 10 years later and they're still looking for their first Cup with that group (though the very well may finally get it this year).

Obviously it helps to be able to draft some superstar talent and get some cheap production for a few years, but with the way the young guys are starting to get paid more earlier in their career (see Matthews signing), I wonder if the Hawks/Penguins model of team building is on the way out.

I agree entirely, that's why I was also looking at the picks that LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and even Washington made that DIDN'T pan out, as well.

I remember when Chicago kicked off their 'rebuild' in spectacular fashion back in 2000, they had FIFTEEN picks in that draft, including the #10 and #11 overall picks. Of those 15 players, NONE of them played 60 NHL games. All 15 of them combined for a grand total of 186 games played. In 2001, the next year, their big draft pick at #9 overall was Tuomo Ruutu, a decent player, but hardly a star. They did pick up Craig Anderson in the 3rd round, Besides those two, they drafted 11 players that combined for a total of 44 NHL games.

Then in 2004, they tried to cash in on the draft again, with SEVENTEEN picks, including the #3 overall (Cam Barker). They got some decent players (Barker, Dave Bolland, Bryan Bickell, Troy Brouwer), a couple of whom helped on their 2010 cup run, but none of them were 'stars' per se.

Combining 2006 and 2007, Chicago had 16 draft picks in those two years. 14 of those players combined for a grand total of 11 NHL games played. The other two were Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane.

It's not just having an early draft pick once in a while, but having a LOT of picks, too. LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Washington had their share of misses as well, even with some early picks, they just had a lot more chances.

You could argue, adjusting for draft position, that Saint Louis has drafted as well or better, even. All 6 of our 1st round picks from 2006-08 that you mentioned have each played at least 450+ NHL games, they're all actually 'decent' players, if unspectacular, and all but one of them is still playing in the NHL (Patrik Berglund is the one who isn't, and he may yet return as he gets himself sorted out). But you're FAR less likely to pick up an 'impact' player, top-line winger, top pairing D, etc, with a pick in the 20's or later than you are in the top 10 or top 15.

The Blues have actually done pretty well for where they've drafted, but we're constantly hoping that late 1st-round and beyond picks are going to turn into franchise players, and that's just SUPER rare in the last couple of decades, especially for a franchise to do multiple times. The days of picking up a Chris Drury and Milan Hejduk in the 3rd and 4th rounds of the same draft (Quebec/Colorado, 1994), or Detroit picking up a Pavel Datsyuk in the 6th round (1998) then a Henrik Zetterberg in the 7th round (1999) of back-to-back drafts are about the same as being hit by lightning twice these days.

As always, JMHO.

To reasonable candidates, to be sure. I suspect Q's price in both money and years will be prohibitive for the blues, but you never know. I'm a fan of Sutter but I don't know if he's even interested in coaching anymore.