HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Stillman

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-02-2013, 06:37 PM
  #26
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedinBlueSince1972 View Post
Yep, except the UFA comment. Blues have too many RFA to deal with, Stewie, Shatty, Pie. However Beglund gets moved.
Yeah that was a mistake I meant to type RFAs not UFAs lol.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 06:55 PM
  #27
JustOneB4IDie
Everyone Overpayment
 
JustOneB4IDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Man Cave
Country: United States
Posts: 3,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
Yeah that was a mistake I meant to type RFAs not UFAs lol.
Cool.

JustOneB4IDie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 03:30 AM
  #28
Blueshockey21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 521
vCash: 500
I'm torn between loving Stillman and not despising him, but more or less wishing we had a different owner. The good news is we will have a guy to fight to keep the team in St. Louis and try his hardest to win, but having said that he is not a piggy bank by any means and we will continue to be a lower payroll team.
As long as he ponies up and pays for Petro, Shatty, Stewart, and Berglund get the deals they deserve I will be fine. Today's NHL is all about keeping your players and developing gone are the days of rebuilding through UFA and looking at next years U.F.A. class that will continue.

Blueshockey21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 04:20 AM
  #29
Colt 55
RIP Oscar and Jose
 
Colt 55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eureka
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 10,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
The team has been in a horrible situation financially for a long time. There wasn't any change from Checketts to Stillman in this respect. Armstrong has probably also not walked into Stillman's office and said, trade for expensive Player X and we'll win the Cup. Because he knows that's not the case. And as long as it's not the case, they have to wait until this summer to see what happened in the postseason and where the RFA deals shake out.
I honestly think something like that was said to Stillman. It made absolute no sense for this team to take on the contract they just took on, if they don't think they can win it all this year. Stillman will spend where he see's fit, but if we don't go at least 3 rounds this year I think he's gonna tell Armstrong to clean house.

Colt 55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 05:38 AM
  #30
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve French View Post
I honestly think something like that was said to Stillman. It made absolute no sense for this team to take on the contract they just took on, if they don't think they can win it all this year. Stillman will spend where he see's fit, but if we don't go at least 3 rounds this year I think he's gonna tell Armstrong to clean house.
I would change that from win it all to win 2 rounds. Winning 2 rounds ensures more profit than the excess of Bouwmeester's salary over Redden's.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 06:23 AM
  #31
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,238
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve French View Post
I honestly think something like that was said to Stillman. It made absolute no sense for this team to take on the contract they just took on, if they don't think they can win it all this year. Stillman will spend where he see's fit, but if we don't go at least 3 rounds this year I think he's gonna tell Armstrong to clean house.
In what way doesn't it make sense? If we get the contracts sorted in the coming months then getting Bouwmeester has just solidified our defence for the better part of a decade. Doing it now makes a lot more sense than doing it in the summer, given what his pro-rated salary will cost and the benefit to the team in a playoff run.

I'm sure that Armstrong thinks winning the Cup is possible this season, but there is no way that he walked into Stillman's office and said that Bouwmeester puts us over the top this year. This move is about making us a contender for the coming years. You don't take on a contract like that with the view that you are going to blow up your team on the basis of the next 14 games.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 06:35 AM
  #32
Colt 55
RIP Oscar and Jose
 
Colt 55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eureka
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 10,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
In what way doesn't it make sense? If we get the contracts sorted in the coming months then getting Bouwmeester has just solidified our defence for the better part of a decade. Doing it now makes a lot more sense than doing it in the summer, given what his pro-rated salary will cost and the benefit to the team in a playoff run.

I'm sure that Armstrong thinks winning the Cup is possible this season, but there is no way that he walked into Stillman's office and said that Bouwmeester puts us over the top this year. This move is about making us a contender for the coming years.
Obviously. We didn't trade for the guy as a rental, but only way we will be able to get those contracts sorted out is a deep playoff run this year. If in fact we don't do deep in the playoffs, we will pretty much have to trade a lot of key pieces, because we can't afford it.

Colt 55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 07:26 AM
  #33
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,238
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve French View Post
Obviously. We didn't trade for the guy as a rental, but only way we will be able to get those contracts sorted out is a deep playoff run this year. If in fact we don't do deep in the playoffs, we will pretty much have to trade a lot of key pieces, because we can't afford it.
Go deep in the playoffs next season? Absolutely. This season? No.

We are an unseeded team, and it is unlikely we will even be seeded in the first playoff round. The idea that we acquired a $6.6m salary on the basis that we have to go deep into the playoffs this season or risk having to lose Pietrangelo/Shattenkirk/Stewart would suggest terrible management. Beyond terrible. That would be a big gamble that just didn't need to be taken. We could have went after much cheaper options at a higher asset cost (Sekera).

I think we are pretty safe in assuming that this season and next season's payroll bump is being paid for from the cash injection from the Peoria sale. A deep playoff run this season obviously helps the matter, but I don't see a massive slashing of personnel for financial reasons in the summer if we don't make the Conference finals.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 11:59 AM
  #34
Multimoodia
Sicker Than Usual
 
Multimoodia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Range
Country: Qatar
Posts: 3,171
vCash: 500
I asked a couple people who would know about the sudden about-face.

The response I got was amusing, and boils down to:
We have no fricking clue...nothing changed on the financial side of things.

I guess he is simply willing to lose money to give the Blues a chance to arrive on the next tier. Impressive really.

Multimoodia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 01:17 PM
  #35
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,559
vCash: 466
I really don't get why anyone would be down on Stillman. If so, its based on unfounded speculation rather than his history (short as it is) as an owner so far. Is it that hard to give the front office credit that they know what they'll need to re-sign the RFAs? This group has a great track record, and Armstrong has shown great judgement. Stillman has also shown a willingness to make hard choices (sell off Peoria, let JD go) in order to put more money on the ice.

2 Minute Minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 01:38 PM
  #36
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimoodia View Post
I asked a couple people who would know about the sudden about-face.

The response I got was amusing, and boils down to:
We have no fricking clue...nothing changed on the financial side of things.

I guess he is simply willing to lose money to give the Blues a chance to arrive on the next tier. Impressive really.
Or perhaps he has some pretty steep price increases in mind for next season and he knows there will be backlash if that decision was coupled with the Blues regressing from last years results or even worse, missing the playoffs altogether.

As for 2MM, the JD decision wasn't exactly hard. It was pretty much, "J.D., you're a nice guy. I like you. But you're contract is the hockey equivalent of Scott Gomez. This isn't going to work."

The "hard" decision he made was firing 20-25 staffers in the summer. Though other than the unfortunate aspect of firing someone, this decision apparently wasn't very hard at all as Checketts had a plethora of redundancy throughout the payroll both on the hockey and business side.

TheOrganist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 01:44 PM
  #37
Multimoodia
Sicker Than Usual
 
Multimoodia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Range
Country: Qatar
Posts: 3,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOrganist View Post
Or perhaps he has some pretty steep price increases in mind for next season and he knows there will be backlash if that decision was coupled with the Blues regressing from last years results or even worse, missing the playoffs altogether.
Not sure myself, I do know that one of the groups who know are not Blues fans.
They do not dislike the Blues...just remain ignorant of them.

Anyway, they were quite confused why I asked them these questions until yesterday morning...then they understood.

Multimoodia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 01:51 PM
  #38
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
I really don't get why anyone would be down on Stillman. If so, its based on unfounded speculation rather than his history (short as it is) as an owner so far. Is it that hard to give the front office credit that they know what they'll need to re-sign the RFAs? This group has a great track record, and Armstrong has shown great judgement. Stillman has also shown a willingness to make hard choices (sell off Peoria, let JD go) in order to put more money on the ice.
People are frustrated with how the season is going. They are picking and choosing people to bash. Somehow Stillman got in the cross-hairs.

Elliott made some comments almost throwing teammates under the bus as bad as Halak did, but nobody mentions those.

Shattenkirk mentioned that they needed the vote of confidence from managment that Leopold signaled, yet nobody gets on him for not being a professional.

Its damn frustrating watching some posters make mountains out of molehills while ignoring the other ones. I understand being frustrated with the team and all, but sometimes people need to remember that we don't have the full story.

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 04:21 PM
  #39
SIU LAW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 506
vCash: 500
Based on a question in JR's chat today, ticket prices are indeed going up.

SIU LAW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 04:27 PM
  #40
bleedblue1223
Fire Army
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 30,425
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIU LAW View Post
Based on a question in JR's chat today, ticket prices are indeed going up.
Well yeah, they are still below average and ticket prices usually always go up a little with inflation. They can better justify it with their increased spending.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 05:52 PM
  #41
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,238
vCash: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIU LAW View Post
Based on a question in JR's chat today, ticket prices are indeed going up.
I seen that too. Our tickets are pretty cheap just now, so nobody can complain about an increase in the pricing.

If what the guy in the chat said was accurate, and his tickets are going up by 30%, then that is pretty steep. I feel that if you are going to see that kind of jump then we should have had all our RFA's locked up before the increase was announced/renewals sent out and a cover letter should have been sent out just saying a rough plan. That is a massive jump to ask people to commit to when we can't see what our plan is going forward. I expected a more staggered increase.

I had planned on having 2 season tickets this season, despite not living in the States, but that was scrapped because of the lockout. I'll certainly have them for next season though.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 05:57 PM
  #42
bleedblue1223
Fire Army
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 30,425
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
I seen that too. Our tickets are pretty cheap just now, so nobody can complain about an increase in the pricing.

If what the guy in the chat said was accurate, and his tickets are going up by 30%, then that is pretty steep. I feel that if you are going to see that kind of jump then we should have had all our RFA's locked up before the increase was announced/renewals sent out and a cover letter should have been sent out just saying a rough plan. That is a massive jump to ask people to commit to when we can't see what our plan is going forward. I expected a more staggered increase.

I had planned on having 2 season tickets this season, despite not living in the States, but that was scrapped because of the lockout. I'll certainly have them for next season though.
Didn't look at it, but a 30% increase for $20 tickets is just $26, so for 2 tickets over 41 games, it's an extra $492, then depending on the amount of preseason games it would be and extra $550ish total. Not terrible for the cheap seats, just as long as they spend.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 06:08 PM
  #43
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,238
vCash: 868
It isn't bad, particularly when broken down to a game-by-game basis. If we are really going to start spending, I think those that can afford to renew will. Wouldn't be surprised if uptake wasn't huge until we start announcing extensions.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 07:46 PM
  #44
Yoko Ono*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: La La Land Blue Note
Posts: 144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
This is far too premature. Until we have dealt with our RFA's then how can we even comment on this?

The roster pieces that should have been brought in last summer wouldn't have added a massive amount of salary when you factor in the players that we'd needed to have traded to acquire them. While no major pieces have come in, none have left.

As for Checketts, he made a bad situation worse with the moronic concessions contract. We'll struggle with that for a long time.
He made the concessions contract with a good friend wink wink. He is prolly seeing a nice kickback knowing how Dave operated.

Yoko Ono* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 07:59 PM
  #45
Prussian_Blue
Registered User
 
Prussian_Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Selling the rights to the AHL franchise may have been a good business move in the short term, but in the long term, the surrender of a degree of control in the development of prospects is going to bite the Blues in the @$$.

The example I use in tomorrow night's "Game Time" is this:
  • Assume the Blues affiliate with the Chicago Wolves for next season.
  • The Wolves, normally a pretty active club in pursuit of AHL-level veterans, go out and sign Defenseman "X" for next year.
  • The Wolves decide that Defenseman "X" gives them a better chance to win and put butts in the seats at Allstate Arena than, say, rookie Jani Hakanpää, whom the Blues would like to develop.
  • The Wolves make their player decisions independently of the Blues' long-term player development plans. Ergo, Defenseman "X" plays and Hakanpää eats press box food at Allstate Arena until he gets tired of it and catches the next plane out of O'Hare back to Helsinki.

That is the chief issue that I have with the Blues unloading their AHL franchise. The surrender of control over ice time and, subsequently, player development.

Prussian_Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 08:08 PM
  #46
bleedblue1223
Fire Army
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 30,425
vCash: 130
Don't think it would go to that extent, but it would probably just mean less minutes. Maybe the younger players fight more for minutes, which could be a small benefit.

Either way, Peoria hasn't been that successful at developing our mid prospects anyway, so not that big of a deal in my eyes.

You could also argue that our European prospects wouldn't want to live in Peoria and Chicago is a more attractive place to live.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 08:18 PM
  #47
Prussian_Blue
Registered User
 
Prussian_Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Don't think it would go to that extent, but it would probably just mean less minutes. Maybe the younger players fight more for minutes, which could be a small benefit.

Either way, Peoria hasn't been that successful at developing our mid prospects anyway, so not that big of a deal in my eyes.

You could also argue that our European prospects wouldn't want to live in Peoria and Chicago is a more attractive place to live.
I think you're missing my point somewhat.

The issue is not whether players like living in peoria vs. living in Chicago. The issue is the amount of control the Blues have over decisions like who gets ice time, and who plays with whom.

As the owner of an AHL franchise, the Blues had a great deal of control over those kinds of decisions.

As a beggar, coming hat in hand to an independent club like the Wolves, the Blues have little or no control over those kinds of decisions.

This is worrisome to me especially now, since the Blues are just about to dump the largest group of top-notch rookie prospects on their AHL affiliate in perhaps the entire history of the franchise. Jaskin, Hakanpää, Veilleux, Jordan Binnington, Joel Edmundson, Ty Rattie, Ryan tesink.

These aren't second-tier prospects, no Tyler Shattocks or Anthony Nigros here. These are all guys who are legitimate Top 15 prospects in the entire organization.

That the Blues are willingly giving up some measure of control in the development of their prospects, at the time when they are preparing to infuse the roster of the AHL affiliate with the biggest and best talent boost in Blues' history, is bothersome to me.

Prussian_Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 08:23 PM
  #48
bleedblue1223
Fire Army
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 30,425
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian_Blue View Post
I think you're missing my point somewhat.

The issue is not whether players like living in peoria vs. living in Chicago. The issue is the amount of control the Blues have over decisions like who gets ice time, and who plays with whom.

As the owner of an AHL franchise, the Blues had a great deal of control over those kinds of decisions.

As a beggar, coming hat in hand to an independent club like the Wolves, the Blues have little or no control over those kinds of decisions.

This is worrisome to me especially now, since the Blues are just about to dump the largest group of top-notch rookie prospects on their AHL affiliate in perhaps the entire history of the franchise. Jaskin, Hakanpää, Veilleux, Jordan Binnington, Joel Edmundson, Ty Rattie, Ryan tesink.

These aren't second-tier prospects, no Tyler Shattocks or Anthony Nigros here. These are all guys who are legitimate Top 15 prospects in the entire organization.

That the Blues are willingly giving up some measure of control in the development of their prospects, at the time when they are preparing to infuse the roster of the AHL affiliate with the biggest and best talent boost in Blues' history, is bothersome to me.
Definitely. I'm not very worried about Rattie or Jaskin, as I doubt either will be in Chicago very long, but the rest I do have concerns about. Hopefully in a couple years we find a better option, I was just trying to think of some minor benefits. The benefits don't outweigh the negatives on the development side though.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 08:29 PM
  #49
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,238
vCash: 868
I agree with you Prussian, this is a bad time for this move. Peoria hasn't been great from a development standpoint, but it hasn't been as bad as many (including myself) have suggested it has been. In recent years the Blues have been that bad that our top end talent has completely bypassed the AHL.

Next year is the first year that we will see a significant influx of quality, and is the year we have given up control. How much of a mistake that will be is to be seen, but it is telling that the Canucks have been looking to buy an AHL franchise for a while now. That also means there is no easy way back from this is we regret selling the team.

Chicago has a win first policy, so that will hurt the development of some of our players, but we are guessing at how much it will hurt.

Again though, I have no idea how much money Peoria was losing. I'm sure that we realise that the best way to keep costs down is to develop as well as we can and then move our expensive, proven players when our prospects are ready. If we are confident we can still do that, then great.

Does anyone know how this type of marriage works? Do the Chicago Wolves pay the Blues to be their affiliate? Do the Wolves pay our players AHL salary? Surely we can't pay all our players AHL salaries and get nothing from the deal other than they get game time...

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 12:23 AM
  #50
diehardbluesfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 771
vCash: 500
Our STH prices don't change at all if we renew by the 17th which we will. They don't go up that much at all. If you can't afford an extra $300 or so, you probably shouldn't have season tickets in the first place.

diehardbluesfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.