Mindboggling if you ask me....outside of Jaskin of course who played regularly.

"It may not seem like Hitch likes youth and certainly he doesn't want 15 players with two years of experience. But believe me, if Hitch had a lineup with Bortuzzo and Lindbohm, Jaskin and maybe Fabbri, he would not be disappointed. I understand the perception that he may not crave young players. I can tell you he wants good players, and he feels that those players are better than some of the ones that the Blues have suited up, including this year. So why didn't he play them? I don't know the answer. Loyalty? I don't know"

NHLTIM wrote:Mindboggling if you ask me....outside of Jaskin of course who played regularly.

"It may not seem like Hitch likes youth and certainly he doesn't want 15 players with two years of experience. But believe me, if Hitch had a lineup with Bortuzzo and Lindbohm, Jaskin and maybe Fabbri, he would not be disappointed. I understand the perception that he may not crave young players. I can tell you he wants good players, and he feels that those players are better than some of the ones that the Blues have suited up, including this year. So why didn't he play them? I don't know the answer. Loyalty? I don't know"

Bortuzzo was injured, Lindbohm and Fabbri were not on the team, Jaskin played.

bluebloodkc wrote:

NHLTIM wrote:Mindboggling if you ask me....outside of Jaskin of course who played regularly.

"It may not seem like Hitch likes youth and certainly he doesn't want 15 players with two years of experience. But believe me, if Hitch had a lineup with Bortuzzo and Lindbohm, Jaskin and maybe Fabbri, he would not be disappointed. I understand the perception that he may not crave young players. I can tell you he wants good players, and he feels that those players are better than some of the ones that the Blues have suited up, including this year. So why didn't he play them? I don't know the answer. Loyalty? I don't know"

Bortuzzo was injured, Lindbohm and Fabbri were not on the team, Jaskin played.

Yes...we already know that.

Youth is always a gamble, and Hitch is not a gambler. He'd rather play someone older, who he knows ain't going to score (Steve Ott), but plays strong on the puck and is defensibly responsible...than to take a gamble on youth,and possibly have a defensive breakdown. It's who he is, and we wont see an offensive driven team here as long as he's driving the train. I don't think that he hates youth, per se, he's afraid of the defensive breakdowns that come with young players.

If he feels certain players are better....Hitch is gonna have to get rid of the loyalty factor. Hopefully that will be part of his "growing" next year when they announce they are bringing him back but that they also expect changes from him as well.

NHLTIM wrote:If he feels certain players are better....Hitch is gonna have to get rid of the loyalty factor. Hopefully that will be part of his "growing" next year when they announce they are bringing him back but that they also expect changes from him as well.

We can all hope, but it's a little late in the game to expect him to change his ways. The only way he changes, is if Army takes away his security blanket players, and forces youth upon him. If's a tough call, because you want to see the kids force their own way into the lineup, as opposed to having jobs handed to them....but if you are keeping Hitch, it's the only way.

Turk Sanderson wrote:Youth is always a gamble, and Hitch is not a gambler. He'd rather play someone older, who he knows ain't going to score (Steve Ott), but plays strong on the puck and is defensibly responsible...than to take a gamble on youth,and possibly have a defensive breakdown. It's who he is, and we wont see an offensive driven team here as long as he's driving the train. I don't think that he hates youth, per se, he's afraid of the defensive breakdowns that come with young players.

And he's not far removed from most of his coaching brethren in that regard, especially in the playoffs.

This was another comment I found interesting:

Malkin sure would look good wearing a Blue Note. I'm just saying ....

This is pretty common knowledge but any player has to earn the trust of Hitch before they are put in positions of responsibility.

Hitch hasn't seen these young guys play enough to earn the time some people feel they should receive. The more experience they get the more responsibility they earn (or not as it may be in some cases).

He's got over 700 wins, he knows how to coach. Whether or not he should be coaching the Blues anymore isn't because he's not a great coach.

Dave's a mess wrote:This was another comment I found interesting:

Malkin sure would look good wearing a Blue Note. I'm just saying ....

If we keep Hitch but somehow pry Malkin out of Pittsburgh I think I'd be okay with that.

Doubt it happens but hey we can dream right?

I can't believe they are dumb enough to bring Hitch back. His best PLAYOFF coaching days are behind him. 1-7 in the last last 8 playoff series and 12-24 in his last 36 playoff games.

Asking Hitch to come back is like asking to board the Titanic!

I'm pretty well resigned to the fact that this team will not compete for anything for the next season or two. Bringing back Hitch is only going to cost Army his own job next spring and hopefully the next crew brought in will be able to handle youth a bit better because our future success lies in the hands of our younger players. Our older core has absolutely proven that none of them have what it takes to carry this team to anything of meaning. Hopefully Army doesn't clear out the prospect cupboard in a last ditch effort to salvage a sinking ship like he did in Dallas. Very disappointed that we will likely see the same coaches and players this season.

Next season will be different.

BluesSK wrote:This is pretty common knowledge but any player has to earn the trust of Hitch before they are put in positions of responsibility.

Hitch hasn't seen these young guys play enough to earn the time some people feel they should receive. The more experience they get the more responsibility they earn (or not as it may be in some cases).

He's got over 700 wins, he knows how to coach. Whether or not he should be coaching the Blues anymore isn't because he's not a great coach.

The quandry lies in the fact that we play in such a tight division, that October games mean as much as April games. We don't and won't score in bunches, nor will we ever get a big enough lead in this division for Hitch to feel comfortable playing the kids, if he doesn't have to. There's no question that he knows how to coach, but I fear that these vets have too many hard miles on them be effective over the long haul. It's time to inject more youth into this lineup.

Jmho, there was no reason to burn a year of Fabri's ELC this year. We had a full and healthy roster. And it's better asset management. See 17's RFA status basically a year early.

CaptSMRT wrote:Next season will be different.

Yeah we probably won't even make the playoffs

shpongle falls wrote:

Dave's a mess wrote:This was another comment I found interesting:

Malkin sure would look good wearing a Blue Note. I'm just saying ....

If we keep Hitch but somehow pry Malkin out of Pittsburgh I think I'd be okay with that.

Doubt it happens but hey we can dream right?

I would trade anyone not named Tarasenko for Malkin. Schwartz would probably have to be the centerpiece....and I'd probably do it. Especially if we can get them to take Oshie or Backes as well.

UMSLBlues12 wrote:I would trade anyone not named Tarasenko for Malkin. Schwartz would probably have to be the centerpiece....and I'd probably do it. Especially if we can get them to take Oshie or Backes as well.

Man I'd HATE to give up Schwartz in that deal, but for a player of Malkin's caliber I would definitely consider it. Although our left wing depth gets pretty thin after Steen and Schwartz.

shpongle falls wrote:

UMSLBlues12 wrote:I would trade anyone not named Tarasenko for Malkin. Schwartz would probably have to be the centerpiece....and I'd probably do it. Especially if we can get them to take Oshie or Backes as well.

Man I'd HATE to give up Schwartz in that deal, but for a player of Malkin's caliber I would definitely consider it. Although our left wing depth gets pretty thin after Steen and Schwartz.

Oshie Backes Schwartz for DP and Malkin

shpongle falls wrote:

UMSLBlues12 wrote:I would trade anyone not named Tarasenko for Malkin. Schwartz would probably have to be the centerpiece....and I'd probably do it. Especially if we can get them to take Oshie or Backes as well.

Man I'd HATE to give up Schwartz in that deal, but for a player of Malkin's caliber I would definitely consider it. Although our left wing depth gets pretty thin after Steen and Schwartz.

It's interesting discussion but it's been rumored that Malkin will only play for Pittsburgh and would rather go back home than play elsewhere in the NHL. Combined with the fact that Malkin is breaking down quickly (he has played more than 70 games once in the past six years) I'd honestly pass on adding Malkin unless it were a deal that was heavily in our favor and didn't include Schwartz.

ratonmono wrote:Our older core has absolutely proven that none of them have what it takes to carry this team to anything of meaning.

and i'm sure that's what keeps army up at night - which part of that is the cause? "our older core", meaning get rid of them and the team is better, or "this team", meaning surround the core with better players and they are better? i'd hate to have his job, but if i did, "our older core" retires somewhere else.

T.C. wrote:

ratonmono wrote:Our older core has absolutely proven that none of them have what it takes to carry this team to anything of meaning.

and i'm sure that's what keeps army up at night - which part of that is the cause? "our older core", meaning get rid of them and the team is better, or "this team", meaning surround the core with better players and they are better? i'd hate to have his job, but if i did, "our older core" retires somewhere else.

The problem is getting players capable of delivering a long Stanley Cup run don't exactly grow on trees. Of course the Blues must get rid of some players who have been useless when it counts like Oshie and Backes but no one exactly knows how to get those magic missing pieces. A coaching change to Bylsma, Babcock, or McClellan would help too but Army looks like he wants to shoot himself in the foot again and keep Hitch.

It could be a long time waiting for a deep Cup run or a Stanley Cup.

bradleygt89 wrote:...for DP...

You shut your whore mouth!

Trade Backes for Perron straight up.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:The problem is getting players capable of delivering a long Stanley Cup run don't exactly grow on trees.

Beautiful, naked, big-titted women just don't fall out of the sky, you know.