BillP wrote:
He is conservative. His exact quote was it's illogical to make a move for the sake of making a move. This was said in response to keeping Shattenkirk on the roster. An aggressive GM with an acute sense of direction would of traded Shattenkirk as soon as possible and prep the team to move forward. Instead he waited till the deadline and got 1 and Sanford while giving the Caps Copely back.

And didn't Doug say after the series lost to Minnesota that the organization needs to review the type of players they're bringing in? Remember that? Signing Perron who has 1 goal in his last 29 playoff games and a total of 3 in 43 doesn't signify a guy practicing what he preached.

Doug has some good points, I'm not saying he's a total goof. But he's not a difference maker of a GM IMO.

Last one for me on this one as I'm sure we both have better things to do right now, but regarding Shattenkirk, he had a 1-1 deal for Taylor Hall made at the draft that year, but Shattenkirk wouldn't sign an extension to make it work. Without him signing, he made the best deal he could...and that pick was part of the Schenn deal I believe, so that's good management in my book. I'll never agree that a guy that's made as many big trades as Armstrong is conservative, but perhaps that's in the eye of the beholder.

I think he's comfortably one of the top 10 GMs in the league right now, and probably has been at any given point in his tenure. The numbers should make him a slam dunk for a renewal, which is why it seems to me there might be something fishy behind closed doors that has led to the delay.

MattyIce wrote:

BillP wrote:

MattyIce wrote:In the last 10 years, only 5 different teams have won Cups. So, with 26 teams out there without a recent Cup, I don't really think that is a fair argument against Doug. The playoffs can be a crap shoot at times. I haven't loved every one of his moves or signings, but in all I really like the job he has done for the present and the future. Out of the GMs without a Cup, he has to be close to the top, and I just don't see a better replacement.

Blues had a 5 year run posting the best record in NHL during that time. It was the deepest, most stocked team with bargain based contracts that he probably will ever have here as Blues GM and he failed to get the team to the Cup during that time. Other teams like the Kings, who swung 2 huge deals in both years to win their Cups made it happen.

One of those years included a pretty big trade for Miller and Ott... if that isn't going all in, I don't know what is. No, they did not win the Cup that year, but at the time everyone thought that was the move to make.

And it didn't work did it? Maybe a scoring winger would of been better??? That's my point. Doug fails in this area.

I'm pretty torn on this. On the one hand I don't see anybody out there suitable enough to replace Armstrong but on the other hand he has made some real awful moves.

The Miller trade was the worst. Not retaining one of Brouwer or Backes was a major error. Letting Bishop go for nothing irritated me. The Reaves trade facilitating the Lehtera trade comment was bewildering.

The Schenn trade was great. The Johnson trade was a win. I was ok with the gamble taken on Yakupov. He lucked into getting Perron picked up by Vegas.

I'm pretty sure the hang up is dollars. Armstrong would probably do pretty well on the open market and get paid very well.

BluesSK wrote:I'm pretty torn on this. On the one hand I don't see anybody out there suitable enough to replace Armstrong but on the other hand he has made some real awful moves.

The Miller trade was the worst. Not retaining one of Brouwer or Backes was a major error. Letting Bishop go for nothing irritated me. The Reaves trade facilitating the Lehtera trade comment was bewildering.

The Schenn trade was great. The Johnson trade was a win. I was ok with the gamble taken on Yakupov. He lucked into getting Perron picked up by Vegas.

I'm pretty sure the hang up is dollars. Armstrong would probably do pretty well on the open market and get paid very well.

Just wondering, did you hate the Miller trade the day it happened? Or is this hindsight talking?

Also, Brouwer was already building a house in Calgary, so he was gone before the season ended. He offered Backes a heck of a contract. I personally wish he would have matched Boston's offer, but he must have had a limit and wouldn't go over. I would much rather have Backes than Steen, but just my opinion.

Again, I haven't like every move he has made. But he just took this franchise through a transition period with big decisions to be made and I like where it ended up on the other side.

MattyIce wrote:

BluesSK wrote:I'm pretty torn on this. On the one hand I don't see anybody out there suitable enough to replace Armstrong but on the other hand he has made some real awful moves.

The Miller trade was the worst. Not retaining one of Brouwer or Backes was a major error. Letting Bishop go for nothing irritated me. The Reaves trade facilitating the Lehtera trade comment was bewildering.

The Schenn trade was great. The Johnson trade was a win. I was ok with the gamble taken on Yakupov. He lucked into getting Perron picked up by Vegas.

I'm pretty sure the hang up is dollars. Armstrong would probably do pretty well on the open market and get paid very well.

Just wondering, did you hate the Miller trade the day it happened? Or is this hindsight talking?

Also, Brouwer was already building a house in Calgary, so he was gone before the season ended. He offered Backes a heck of a contract. I personally wish he would have matched Boston's offer, but he must have had a limit and wouldn't go over. I would much rather have Backes than Steen, but just my opinion.

Again, I haven't like every move he has made. But he just took this franchise through a transition period with big decisions to be made and I like where it ended up on the other side.

No. I was one of the few who hated it from day 1. I didn't see it helping the chemistry of the team at all and the payment was too high.

The big splash of the trade deadline came on Friday night when the St. Louis Blues acquired Ryan Miller and Steve Ott from the Buffalo Sabres for Jaroslav Halak, Chris Stewart, prospect William Carrier, a first-round draft pick in 2015 and a third-round pick in 2016.

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/ryan ... ster-deal/

Armstrong said the upgrade from Halak to Miller was a 7% improvement (whatever the hell that means) and Ott (who I recall had a pretty hefty contract) for Stewart should have been enough. But we also gave up, William Carrier who was a decent prospect, now on Vegas, plus a first and a third round pick. It was a total overpayment for what Armstrong himself said was only a marginal improvement.

Army has made some bad trades. He's made more good moves than bad trades though. The JBo trade was an absolute steal, for example.

As far for being conservative--I'm sorry but that is just simply categorically false. Last year, a year a lot of us thought we weren't going anywhere anyways, was the only year I'd call him conservative. He's made moves at the deadline nearly every year we were considered a contender to strengthen us--the Miller trade, JBo trade, even minor deals for guys like Bortuzzo or Michalek come to mind. When we're contenders and there is a weakness on the team, he's almost always gone out to the market and try to address that weakness before the playoffs. Thats not conservative at all. If anything, I'd rather him be a bit more conservative at times--I didn't think we needed Michalek, for example.

MattyIce wrote:

BluesSK wrote:I'm pretty torn on this. On the one hand I don't see anybody out there suitable enough to replace Armstrong but on the other hand he has made some real awful moves.

The Miller trade was the worst. Not retaining one of Brouwer or Backes was a major error. Letting Bishop go for nothing irritated me. The Reaves trade facilitating the Lehtera trade comment was bewildering.

The Schenn trade was great. The Johnson trade was a win. I was ok with the gamble taken on Yakupov. He lucked into getting Perron picked up by Vegas.

I'm pretty sure the hang up is dollars. Armstrong would probably do pretty well on the open market and get paid very well.

Just wondering, did you hate the Miller trade the day it happened? Or is this hindsight talking?

Also, Brouwer was already building a house in Calgary, so he was gone before the season ended. He offered Backes a heck of a contract. I personally wish he would have matched Boston's offer, but he must have had a limit and wouldn't go over. I would much rather have Backes than Steen, but just my opinion.

Again, I haven't like every move he has made. But he just took this franchise through a transition period with big decisions to be made and I like where it ended up on the other side.

I think Brouwer regrets that decision. Too bad we lost him.

Just curious, but am I the only one on here that thinks things with Backes played out as well as possible? He obviously was a big part of run to the conference finals in 2016, but that contract is ugly. Don't get me wrong I loved him as a Blue, but in my mind he ended his time here on a high note (pun always intended). His contract is 250k more than Steen's and expires the same year. Obviously their best years are behind them both, and both are considered "intangibles" guys, but I feel like Steen's game will age less poorly than Backes'. Certainly having both of them locked up through 2021 would've been bad news.

Dave's a mess wrote:Just curious, but am I the only one on here that thinks things with Backes played out as well as possible? He obviously was a big part of run to the conference finals in 2016, but that contract is ugly. Don't get me wrong I loved him as a Blue, but in my mind he ended his time here on a high note (pun always intended). His contract is 250k more than Steen's and expires the same year. Obviously their best years are behind them both, and both are considered "intangibles" guys, but I feel like Steen's game will age less poorly than Backes'. Certainly having both of them locked up through 2021 would've been bad news.

I think the reason why we didn't re-sign Backes was because of the term and not the dollar amount.

BluesSK wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:Just curious, but am I the only one on here that thinks things with Backes played out as well as possible? He obviously was a big part of run to the conference finals in 2016, but that contract is ugly. Don't get me wrong I loved him as a Blue, but in my mind he ended his time here on a high note (pun always intended). His contract is 250k more than Steen's and expires the same year. Obviously their best years are behind them both, and both are considered "intangibles" guys, but I feel like Steen's game will age less poorly than Backes'. Certainly having both of them locked up through 2021 would've been bad news.

I think the reason why we didn't re-sign Backes was because of the term and not the dollar amount.

Yeah I guess my point was that I feel like we dodged a major bullet when Boston offered that 5th year, and I'm surprised I'm the only one that feels that way.

BillP wrote:

T.C. wrote:

BillP wrote:Brouwer we can dismiss

why?

I just said that to save typing time in trying to make a case for him. It's quite possible he would of gotten picked up by Vegas anyway if we had kept him. It would be awesome if Calgary would eat 25% of his salary and the Blues could get him back here. He's the type of forward the Blues could use right now.

ok cool, then we are on the same page. i think we miss him quite a bit right now.

I respect DA and hope he gets re-signed. He set up this roster in a financially responsible fashion both near and long term. Even if he doesn't come back he has put his successor in a position to succeed.

I think the Blues had a heck of a shot at getting to the Finals last year if Armstrong had pulled the right strings. Retaining Backes over Steen made much more sense for this team IMO.

Conference was wide open last year, yet we add Perron and Yakupov who were both a waste come playoff time. There's no doubt a heavier Blues team would of given Nashville all they could handle. Backes alone would of made a world of difference.

Steen hasn't been healthy the past 2 post-seasons. Everyone thinks he'll age better but this guy is breaking down rapidly now and it's not like he's a graceful player. Steen has to labor to get results. Backes is the stronger guy, going into the corners for him is like a walk in the park. IMO the former Captain will outlast Steen as a useful player.

Dave's a mess wrote:

BluesSK wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:Just curious, but am I the only one on here that thinks things with Backes played out as well as possible? He obviously was a big part of run to the conference finals in 2016, but that contract is ugly. Don't get me wrong I loved him as a Blue, but in my mind he ended his time here on a high note (pun always intended). His contract is 250k more than Steen's and expires the same year. Obviously their best years are behind them both, and both are considered "intangibles" guys, but I feel like Steen's game will age less poorly than Backes'. Certainly having both of them locked up through 2021 would've been bad news.

I think the reason why we didn't re-sign Backes was because of the term and not the dollar amount.

Yeah I guess my point was that I feel like we dodged a major bullet when Boston offered that 5th year, and I'm surprised I'm the only one that feels that way.

Oh yeah! I wanted them to put big-time pressure on to re-sign Brouwer mid-season. I feel the indecision about whether the Blues were going to retain Brouwer or Backes was a partial factor in Brouwer leaving.

BluesSK wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:

BluesSK wrote:
I think the reason why we didn't re-sign Backes was because of the term and not the dollar amount.

Yeah I guess my point was that I feel like we dodged a major bullet when Boston offered that 5th year, and I'm surprised I'm the only one that feels that way.

Oh yeah! I wanted them to put big-time pressure on to re-sign Brouwer mid-season. I feel the indecision about whether the Blues were going to retain Brouwer or Backes was a partial factor in Brouwer leaving.

You are right on the money with this. Not signing him mid-season was one of the reasons why that offseason went so poorly.

MattyIce wrote:

BluesSK wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:
Yeah I guess my point was that I feel like we dodged a major bullet when Boston offered that 5th year, and I'm surprised I'm the only one that feels that way.

Oh yeah! I wanted them to put big-time pressure on to re-sign Brouwer mid-season. I feel the indecision about whether the Blues were going to retain Brouwer or Backes was a partial factor in Brouwer leaving.

You are right on the money with this. Not signing him mid-season was one of the reasons why that offseason went so poorly.

What indication did we have that Brouwer would have taken less than $18 mil over 4 years if we'd have signed him mid-season? It seems like Calgary is where he wanted to be for personal reasons, even then. Not saying he WOULDN'T have signed anywhere else, but if he was leaning towards Calgary, and he and his agent thought he could get a four year deal over $4 mil AAV from multiple bidders, the Blues would still have had to top that.

RAFritchey wrote:

MattyIce wrote:

BluesSK wrote:
Oh yeah! I wanted them to put big-time pressure on to re-sign Brouwer mid-season. I feel the indecision about whether the Blues were going to retain Brouwer or Backes was a partial factor in Brouwer leaving.

You are right on the money with this. Not signing him mid-season was one of the reasons why that offseason went so poorly.

What indication did we have that Brouwer would have taken less than $18 mil over 4 years if we'd have signed him mid-season? It seems like Calgary is where he wanted to be for personal reasons, even then. Not saying he WOULDN'T have signed anywhere else, but if he was leaning towards Calgary, and he and his agent thought he could get a four year deal over $4 mil AAV from multiple bidders, the Blues would still have had to top that.

I'm of the opinion that signing either of them would've been a mistake. The Brouwer contract is a disaster already, and Backes might be heading that way. He had his worst year as a pro last year and isn't getting any younger. There certainly was a lack of depth last season, but I much rather would deal with that for a year than cripple the franchise against the cap for the next 4.

MattyIce wrote:

BluesSK wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:
Yeah I guess my point was that I feel like we dodged a major bullet when Boston offered that 5th year, and I'm surprised I'm the only one that feels that way.

Oh yeah! I wanted them to put big-time pressure on to re-sign Brouwer mid-season. I feel the indecision about whether the Blues were going to retain Brouwer or Backes was a partial factor in Brouwer leaving.

You are right on the money with this. Not signing him mid-season was one of the reasons why that offseason went so poorly.

How does anyone think that we should have signed Brouwer to an extension? That's ridiculous.

Letting Backes / Brouwer walk was absolutely the right move for this team. Knowing when to walk away if a skill very few GMs seem to have, so the fact DA was smart enough on that one is a huge credit (he just should have kept that going on the Steen front)

The one thing i will add:

George McPhee was the gm of washington for 14 yrs.

Was gifted a draft gem in ovechkin (and Backstrom) and never got the team past the 2nd rd of the playoffs...

So longevity can be good with DA
As he has a better track record than GMGM, marginally, but it may be time for new ideas (look how we responded once we got rid of donut eater)

Beatoni12 wrote:

MattyIce wrote:

BluesSK wrote:
Oh yeah! I wanted them to put big-time pressure on to re-sign Brouwer mid-season. I feel the indecision about whether the Blues were going to retain Brouwer or Backes was a partial factor in Brouwer leaving.

You are right on the money with this. Not signing him mid-season was one of the reasons why that offseason went so poorly.

How does anyone think that we should have signed Brouwer to an extension? That's ridiculous.

Letting Backes / Brouwer walk was absolutely the right move for this team. Knowing when to walk away if a skill very few GMs seem to have, so the fact DA was smart enough on that one is a huge credit (he just should have kept that going on the Steen front)

contracts aside, i'd rather have brou than jaskin or paajarvi, for example. probably upshall too. or thorburn.

Saying Backes had a bad year last year is inaccurate. His Shots per game average were up, the most since 2012. This despite playing 2 minutes less per game than the previous year. And furthermore he was not a focal point on Boston's PP last year. So all in all, his numbers were pretty good. And the man had 1 goal, 4 points and 29 hits in 6 playoff games LY - he came to play. Am I a Backes fan, yes, and contrary to belief, he's still alive and well.

Brouwer just isn't a fit for the wide open Flames. He'd be fine here.

Just my opinion - Thank you

Armstrong has been mostly good but never great. He suits the Blues perfectly.

Beatoni12 wrote:

MattyIce wrote:

BluesSK wrote:
Oh yeah! I wanted them to put big-time pressure on to re-sign Brouwer mid-season. I feel the indecision about whether the Blues were going to retain Brouwer or Backes was a partial factor in Brouwer leaving.

You are right on the money with this. Not signing him mid-season was one of the reasons why that offseason went so poorly.

How does anyone think that we should have signed Brouwer to an extension? That's ridiculous.

Letting Backes / Brouwer walk was absolutely the right move for this team. Knowing when to walk away if a skill very few GMs seem to have, so the fact DA was smart enough on that one is a huge credit (he just should have kept that going on the Steen front)

I wasn't trying to make a case for why the Blues should have given Brouwer an extension. I was saying that NOT signing him mid-year caused the Blues to have a horrible offseason in which they lost their captain and their playoff hero and then replacing them with Perron. They could have avoided choppy waters by signing Brouwer or Backes to an extension before free agency. And obviously he wanted to sign both of them since he offered them contracts after the season.

I'm really interested to see what Army can get done this year. Especially at the deadline or near it. We've got pieces and picks to trade. We're playing really well and should make a push to win it all this year.

Plus the standings are crazy, BUF, EDM, OTT, PHI all suck. MTL is only good when Carey Price stands on his head. I feel like BOS and the NYI could fall apart at any moment.

Several trades have been made in season. Lots of GM's are on the hot seat.

Army has to go out and get a right handed RW who can score lots of goals to get more room for Tank.

insideout wrote:Armstrong has been mostly good but never great. He suits the Blues perfectly.