That was hard to take - I have loved them since I was 9, but man this franchise will drive you crazy, another wait till next year. Good thing Stillman has gone out of his way to cater to fans.
Here is what needs to happen: First off, I do not think Armstrong deserves a pass on this. He brought in a lot of guys, including Bortuzzo, a guy that never saw the ice. He has traded away draft pick after draft pick. He decided to resign Bergland, Elliott and Jackman. He gave $7 million to Statsny and a big contract to Oshie. I think it is not out of the question for him and Hitchcock to be fired, assuming there is a great option to replace them. Rosters are not built with free agents, at least in St. Louis. They must be built with lots of quality draft picks. If they are not getting that, the scouts must go.
Now, on to the roster. Guys that must walk or be traded (assuming they can get value and dump the salary)- Oshie, Jackman, bouwmeester, michalek, Ott, Goc, & Jokinin.
Guys you build around: Tarasenko, Schwartz, shattenkirk, petro, Reeves, Statsny, Porter, Reeves, Bortuzzo (resign). I know Backes is scrutinized right now, but guys like him do not grow on trees. Move him to the 3rd line, strip the 'C' and keep him. Give the 'C' to Shatty. While Lehterä was not impressive in the playoffs, I think you give him one more season to get used to the NHL style of play. Same with Jaskin. Give them both one more season. Regarding Bergland, if they can get value for him, trade him. If not, at least he showed a little something this playoff season, scoring a few big goals. I don't like his contract, but that is again, on Armie.
Now, regarding coaching, I take a serious run at Mike Babcock. That is where you start. If not, Armie (I'm assuming ownership keeps him) needs to try very hard to find the next young star coach, pay him less than Hitch and get him in here to whip the boys in shape.
The Blues have been a playoff failure since 2001, really. That is 14 years of either no playoffs, first or second round exits. There was a time when the Blues were rebuilding along with Chicago. They drafted amazingly. They got Toews, we got Johnson. That was the biggest blunder in Blues drafting history. We may have Cups if we had a leader like that. Johnson is the only real bad #1 pick in that time period, give or take 3 years. Look at the names drafted around him. That goes to show how important a good draft can be. It changed the face of the franchise for years to come, not hitting on that #1 overall pick. Toews was a game-changer.
Anyhow, the April tradition continues. As a life-long Blues fan, I am immune to the disappointment.
^There's a lot in there. I mostly nodded, shrugged, or lightly disagreed. But one thing I did want to specifically respond to...
The Erik Johnson draft pick at #1 overall proved to be a blunder, but there was NO controversy when that pick was made. Erik Johnson was the consensus top pick. It was expected, it was praised, it was simply what they were supposed to do.
It didn't work out. But nobody took a gamble and messed up.
But that's the Blues luck for you. The one year the Blues have the top pick, the consensus #1 choice not only isn't a goal-scoring forward (meaning it could have worked out and still not been "the answer"), but it's also a bust.
^^I will politely disagree with you regarding the fact that 'everyone' praised the pick and it was 'consensus'. Toews was projected number one for a long time, up to the last few months, then Johnson got hyped up to number one. Many "experts" felt that Johnson's game would not be as effective in the NHL, as it was in college. I for one, felt the same way. He was never going to be Scott Stevens. He was never that physical, nor was he ever going to be Al Macinnis offensively. I hated the pick. I thought he'd be a very good player, but not #1 overall material. Many "experts" felt Toews or Staal were #1 pick worthy. I know many fell in love with Johnson, but his game was never going to be what it was in college. I also feel like drafting a Defenseman #1 is like drafting a lineman in the NFL. Not typically a franchise changer, as much as a star forward (Orlando Pace not withstanding). I was SO against the pick. Of course, I love to scream, I told you so, because I thought Toews was the best player in the draft. I don't really care about tooting my own horn. I hate that our Blues lost out on a guy, that could have finally led us to a Cup. Instead, we are sitting here in April 2015, watching other teams duke it out for the Cup, still Cupless. As you can tell, I'm bitter. Point of the post, not everyone thought EJ was a consensus #1. Clearly, he was not!!
PS_ Just curious. What exactly do disagree with and what exactly would you recommend the Blues do? I'm open to several different options, anything from a major tweak to a minor blow-up, needs to happen.
Okay, Johnson was largely the consensus #1 pick. Maybe not everyone agreed, but there wasn't much debate. The official amateur rankings that come out listed him number 1. Everyone assumed he would be the pick. There was very little drama.
And for what it's worth, he was drafted out of high school (actually the National Team Development Program), so there was never any discussion about whether his collegiate game would transfer. There were no collegiate games for him until the following year.
I went back and looked at draft projections from then. Everyone I can find lists Johnson #1 and the favorite to go overall. The forwards after that are bunched. Some liked Staal number 2. Others Toews. Kessel is in there as well.
I'm not saying it was impossible to make a better choice, I'm just saying it's hard to fault the Blues here. This was by the book with about as little controversy as possible. It's just their misfortune that he was one of the worst picks of the last decade. (At least we got an actual Norris contender in Shattenkirk with a wise trade of Johnson.)
I'll get back to you later today on my other Blues thoughts. Maybe rather than address your post specifically point-by-point, I'll just give thoughts on where to go from here.
Don't get me wrong, I hear you. Johnson was hyped beyond belief and he was a guy projected to be a franchise player. I was following it in-depth for a long time and several experts really liked Toews. I guess it was a combo of some of the things I read and the fact that I was bored with the thought of drafting a D-man #1 overall. Anyhow, beating a dead horse. Here we are watching Toews and his Hawks rise again, while the Blues are golfing.
As most Blues fans know, the Blues signed Hitchcock to a 1 year deal. I was against bringing him back, but only if they could find a quality replacement. Apparently, there is not a quality replacement out there, at least in the mind of Blues management. If Hitch fails this upcoming season, there is NO doubt, he should and will be gone. I knew he would be back, since the flirtation with Babcock IMO, was nothing more than a dog and pony show. I knew the Blues would not pay that much for a coach. The Leafs had the inside track all along. They have the money and the pull to get a guy like that. That is why I get fired up listening to these media idiots acting as if the Blues actually made a serious run at Babcock. They may have had a short conversation that went like this:
(Blues) 'Babs, here is why you should come to the Blues for way less money'.... (Babcock) You have a great organization, but first off, I need and can get a fortune from Buffalo or Toronto. Second, I don't want to unseat my good buddy Hitch. Sorry, Blues, talk to you later.'
Paraphrasing, that is how it went. Hitch was always going to come back, but they had to make it appear as if they were 'possibly' going in a different direction. Like I said, dog and pony show.
Now, let's see what player moves they make. I still think this team can be successful, with the right moves. They need to get faster, bigger and dump the slugs. (Jackman, amongst others).
Going to be an interesting off-season, as it always is around here, following another playoff failure, from an alleged Stanley Cup contender.
Headline feels a little misleading (though it isn't wrong). Doesn't sound like Stillman spoke about this unprompted. Had he, he would have had more to say.
The Blues are working on it, but they're not ready to ask for anything yet.
In any case, we should find a way to make it work. It is a much better investment than the football stadium would or will be.
jstriebel wrote:Headline feels a little misleading (though it isn't wrong). Doesn't sound like Stillman spoke about this unprompted. Had he, he would have had more to say.
The Blues are working on it, but they're not ready to ask for anything yet.
In any case, we should find a way to make it work. It is a much better investment than the football stadium would or will be.
Agreed. At bare minimum they need to replace the ice plant. NHL hockey plus other ice events are 50 to 60 nights a year in revenue.
The fact they pulled the Presidential convention bid had to be one clue. Plus no NHL All Star Game in almost 30 has to be another.
I've had a chance to be in the "under belly" of a handful of venues including the Scottrade Center. And while I think the fan experience part of the building is solid if dated, there's no question that some of the basic amenities below the seats are lacking.
I had to feel second class to Chicago in anything, so this takes plenty for me to admit, but the United Center is a first class venue. If you ask me, they overdid it in the fan experience (the seating area is too big and feels as big as it is), but the amenities are great, and that includes the hallways that players and staff walk through underneath everything.
Meanwhile, in Scottrade it is dark dreary and lots of exposed concrete and steel (and not in the cool way).
I don't say this to rip on Scottrade. I've always been pleased that we have a venue that appears appropriate for it is. Holds the right amount of people. Creates an intimate experience. Still feels and is modern. Etc. etc. But the point is it definitely does need updating.
The good news is we can make it first class for a relatively small sum. If anywhere from $100-200 million is put into, it's going to be sparkling. And if that's a public private split, you're talking about a FRACTION of the cost of what the football stadium would or will cost for something that will be used much more frequently and serve a wider range of people.
I would definitely feel okay putting up some money to do it.
(And in case I got anybody riled up, I'm still not saying DON'T build the football stadium. But merely comparing the worthiness of this investment to the topic that's front and center right now.)
^ Anyone know how common the arrangement is for the Scottrade, i.e. owned the venue owned by the City but operated by the lead professional team? Not quite sure what the terms are for basic maintenance (which does occur) but obviously they don't have anything in place for overhauls. (This also is a reminder to Gary and other NFL stadium supporters that it is naive to simply assume $6 million annually is all city taxpayers will put into it for the life of the bond extension.... depending upon the lease and specific future needs, it could be tens of millions more to account for.)
One thing that could be a relatively simple thing to do here is re-institute the City Amusement Tax on the Scottrade, which I'm pretty sure was ended as a subsidy for the Blues. I assume that would generate enough revenue to back a decent-sized bond issue and maybe leave some for excess for downtown enhancements.
This was in response to the Blues discussion on the Cardinals thread but I felt it was better here.
The Blues have one of the best back stories, names, and logos in sports today. The visual execution has had various amounts of success and I think a trend back to a simpler jersey last year was a plus. The "Blue Note" is a great design.
I don't think the franchise plays up the history of the name enough. I also wonder how many fans realize they are named after a song. There should be an area in Scottrade dedicated to the name with the lyrics to the song on the wall with a mural or something. I always thought WC Handy should be the mascot, however they decided to go with a lovable blue bear instead......interesting choice.
In game media and videos should tie into the music theme. How have they not played clips on stuff like this before, during, and after games?
I realize they nail the Glenn Miller March, but branch out a bit. Get some local bands to play inside the arena for an hour on weekends or something. Especially with the opening of the Blues Museum (hopefully) during this season, this is a great opportunity for the franchise to diversify its media relations and community connections.
^That's something that could be said for the city as a whole, really. When I first brought my wife (then girlfriend) home for the first time we were driving past Scottrade and she asked (not being a hockey fan nor a big music fan) "Why are they called the Blues? Wouldn't that make more sense for Nashville?" Obviously, Nashville is famous for country music, but the city is known as "Music City". So for someone who doesn't follow hockey and isn't interested in music history, she made the connection that a music mascot should be from Music City. St. Louis is not known as a music city in the same sense that Nashville, New Orleans, and Memphis are. Hopefully the Blues Museum changes that, because many locals are unaware of that heritage as well.
To continue the conversation that hijacked the Cardinals thread, today's Blues jerseys are my favorite. It's too bad that the one I bought was an Oshie jersey. I have the worst luck with jerseys (Pujols, Freese, Oshie). My Reebok Tarasenko one is the only one I possess that is still a St. Louis player.
^There kind of is. I just take the stitching out of the numbers / name and take them back to the stadium. I know Busch stadium has a place to get a new name stitched on. Haven't needed to do it for the Blues yet.
Oshie is more of a problem for me. Pujols is going to go into the Hall as a Cardinal, and Freese will forever be a St. Louis hero. Oshie is just going to be remembered for failing to live up to the hype.
dmelsh wrote:^There kind of is. I just take the stitching out of the numbers / name and take them back to the stadium. I know Busch stadium has a place to get a new name stitched on. Haven't needed to do it for the Blues yet.
