HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

Game 46: St. Louis vs. Colorado "Is this St. Louis?"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-24-2013, 01:46 PM
  #426
pricer502
Registered User
 
pricer502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Country: United States
Posts: 463
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I think, as always happens every time in these discussions at the end of the season, we're conflating "the attitude Blues players should carry" with "what fans should want." Blues players should absolutely carry the attitude of couldn't-care-less, bring-on-whomever. But we're fans. We're not on the team. We can sit back at some remove and cool-headedly analyze. And by doing this it's not some indictment that we as fans don't have the attitude of bring-on-anybody ... because, again, we're not on the team.

Still waiting for a single play-LAer to come up with a single legitimate rebuttal to the point about needing $$ to fund increasing contendership. It has not happened once so far in any argument. The play-LAers universally dodge this argument. Why is that?
I mentioned this around the trade deadline. Pretty sure none of us are Blues executives nor are we privy to insider information. Alot of you think you know whats going on but you have no idea. I said the Blues were not done after the Leopold trade and got laughed at and told there is no way they were brining on any more cap. Turns out they did and they brought on a huge contract that many said we can't afford. To claim we have to go deep in the playoffs or be the lower seed in the first round to almost guanrtee 3 home games becuase we need the extra revenue to be competitive next year is ridiculous.

pricer502 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:47 PM
  #427
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
I dont see many people if any saying they hope we play LA in the first round. Some of us don't care who are opponet is. All matchups in the playoffs are difficult and there are no guarentees we can beat any of these teams. I just find it ridiculous that nobody gives us a chance to beat LA. If we get them in the first round we might as well forfeit according to alot of you.
This is why I was able to win at poker when I did it professionally. Some of us don't care what the cards the hit the flop are, no matter what flops we're equally likely to win the hand. All hands in poker are difficult, there are no guarantees you'll win any hand so give me any two cards and any flop to start. I paid bills for years because there are many people out there who think this way.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:53 PM
  #428
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
I mentioned this around the trade deadline. Pretty sure none of us are Blues executives nor are we privy to insider information. Alot of you think you know whats going on but you have no idea. I said the Blues were not done after the Leopold trade and got laughed at and told there is no way they were brining on any more cap. Turns out they did and they brought on a huge contract that many said we can't afford. To claim we have to go deep in the playoffs or be the lower seed in the first round to almost guanrtee 3 home games becuase we need the extra revenue to be competitive next year is ridiculous.
Again, this is just a really pitiful rebuttal to the need cash argument. All you did was label the idea of needing more cash as "ridiculous" because we're not privy to the internal financials.

No, you're right, this team has all the money it needs to do whatever. Excellent reply.

Yeah, it's official, the play-LAers have literally no response to that very real need. They just say it's equally likely we match up well against LA as any other team just because playoffs are hard. Yeah, just like last year, LA played San Jose on the final two days of the regular season to determine which drew Vancouver and which drew the Blues. And there really was no difference in the playoff matchups of those two opponents. Right? Exactly the same. We'd have probably beaten LA in round 1 and gotten steamrolled by the Sharks in round 2. Right? Yeah, excellent argument there. Also who knows how rich an organziation the Blues really are? Evidence for this: none of us own the team and therefore it's unknowable and equally likely they're super flush with cash as they are a budget team. No, seriously, keep it coming, this stuff is gold.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:58 PM
  #429
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
On to a different topic. This argument is pretty clear-cut when there's no legitimate reply to the need extra playoff revenue issue.

Elliott is starting again Thursday even though Halak says he's ready. Good. Russell is also in for Jackman who's day-to-day and resting bruises.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:00 PM
  #430
trevorftw
Voice of Reason
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 377
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Again, this is just a really pitiful rebuttal to the need cash argument. All you did was label the idea of needing more cash as "ridiculous" because we're not privy to the internal financials.

No, you're right, this team has all the money it needs to do whatever. Excellent reply.

Yeah, it's official, the play-LAers have literally no response to that very real need. They just say it's equally likely we match up well against LA as any other team just because playoffs are hard. Yeah, just like last year, LA played San Jose on the final two days of the regular season to determine which drew Vancouver and which drew the Blues. And there really was no difference in the playoff matchups of those two opponents. Right? Exactly the same. We'd have probably beaten LA in round 1 and gotten steamrolled by the Sharks in round 2. Right? Yeah, excellent argument there. Also who knows how rich an organziation the Blues really are? Evidence for this: none of us own the team and therefore it's unknowable and equally likely they're super flush with cash as they are a budget team. No, seriously, keep it coming, this stuff is gold.
I don't see how it matters much. LA has had our number, but I like our chances in an opening round with our players healthy and ready to go vs meeting the kings in a 2nd or 3rd round matchup, and potentially having some battered players. Then again, LA could be the ones beaten up in the later rounds.

If we could avoid them altogether that would be nice, but if we're destined to duel it out, it probably doesn't really matter which round it is.

trevorftw is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:05 PM
  #431
pricer502
Registered User
 
pricer502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Country: United States
Posts: 463
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
On to a different topic. This argument is pretty clear-cut when there's no legitimate reply to the need extra playoff revenue issue.

Elliott is starting again Thursday even though Halak says he's ready. Good. Russell is also in for Jackman who's day-to-day and resting bruises.
Here is how you sound. The Blues must win the first round and go deep into the playoffs so they can play 6+ home games otherwise we will have no money and let all are FA walk at the end of the year. And therefore we will suck next year and have no chance to win. And the only way for this to happen is to avoid LA in the 1st round.

pricer502 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:07 PM
  #432
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 6,971
vCash: 714
Alright PN, maybe we should root for the team that we think is most likely to go to 6 games. I'm worried the Blues might sweep or win in 5 and only get 2 home games out of it.

For myself, I don't have a strong opinion about who the Blues 'should' play. I'm more interested in seeing the team playing at its best. I'm skeptical, but starting to be just a wee bit hopeful. Oshie coming back would turn that into full-blown hope.

I thought Halak would get a start out of the last couple games. I think that he'll actually be the playoff back-up. It puts less pressure on everyone that way. Elliott knows that there's other options, Allen isn't really even in the equation (though he could play if things go south) and Halak isn't being relied on for anything. Pretty much anything he does will be a pleasant surprise.

2 Minute Minor is online now  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:08 PM
  #433
pricer502
Registered User
 
pricer502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Country: United States
Posts: 463
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
On to a different topic. This argument is pretty clear-cut when there's no legitimate reply to the need extra playoff revenue issue.

Elliott is starting again Thursday even though Halak says he's ready. Good. Russell is also in for Jackman who's day-to-day and resting bruises.
You are so sure of the Blues financial situation that you even said you were 99% sure they were done making moves after the Leopold trade. Keep up the good work!
Sorry it was 90%

pricer502 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:21 PM
  #434
JustOneB4IDie
Everyone Overpayment
 
JustOneB4IDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: St. Louis MO
Country: United States
Posts: 3,320
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by superblues View Post
I've never heard anyone reminisce about how easy it was to win a cup.
And the Blues have never won the Cup

JustOneB4IDie is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:24 PM
  #435
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
Here is how you sound. The Blues must win the first round and go deep into the playoffs so they can play 6+ home games otherwise we will have no money and let all are FA walk at the end of the year. And therefore we will suck next year and have no chance to win. And the only way for this to happen is to avoid LA in the 1st round.
I suppose that's how you think I sound, but I can't account for the weird things your brain will do, so ...

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:26 PM
  #436
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
You are so sure of the Blues financial situation that you even said you were 99% sure they were done making moves after the Leopold trade. Keep up the good work!
Sorry it was 90%
I also stood up when I estimated 80-90%. But the idea that you think taking on an extra 6.68M for next year makes the Blues' financial situation less relevant is ... special.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:30 PM
  #437
pricer502
Registered User
 
pricer502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Country: United States
Posts: 463
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I also stood up when I estimated 80-90%. But the idea that you think taking on an extra 6.68M for next year makes the Blues' financial situation less relevant is ... special.
It means that they can afford JBow plus the FA they consider to crucial to sign in the offseason or they wouldn't have made the deal. So yes the fact that they went out and made that trade leads me to believe we are doing ok and will continue to do just fine. But I can't be sure either becuase like I said no one knows besides the ownership group/execs

pricer502 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:37 PM
  #438
Celtic Note
Moderator
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
It means that they can afford JBow plus the FA they consider to crucial to sign in the offseason or they wouldn't have made the deal. So yes the fact that they went out and made that trade leads me to believe we are doing ok and will continue to do just fine. But I can't be sure either becuase like I said no one knows besides the ownership group/execs
It really isn't worth it. I recommend moving along.

Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:42 PM
  #439
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
It means that they can afford JBow plus the FA they consider to crucial to sign in the offseason or they wouldn't have made the deal. So yes the fact that they went out and made that trade leads me to believe we are doing ok and will continue to do just fine. But I can't be sure either becuase like I said no one knows besides the ownership group/execs
How the heck does being a budget team that spends an extra 6.68M make it MORE LIKELY there's MORE money to spend? Your argument is basically that spending 6.68M means the Blues probably have EVEN MORE money, and you just cover that opinion by stating (duh) that we're not owners so how could we know.

By the way. Since we're calling each other out for past opinions and that's a little game you want to play, how bout you stand up for this one? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sure, it wouldn't be an immediate stand-up like I did for my opinion, but it's never too late! If we get a new owner there's NO DOUBT the Blues make a big splash in free agency during the summer. Not even 80-90% ... 100%, no doubt! And they didn't. So good job there. I guess it varies with whether you're you or you're me when it comes to stating with total confidence what the owners will do.

Quote:
I believe the Blues are legitimately a top 6 team in the enitre league this year, but lets be honest we don't have the financial resources to bring someone in to make a huge impact at the trade deadline. Therefore I say lets role with what we got and take our chances this year. It kinda seems like one of those special years like the Cardianls had where things are falling into place for us. In my opinion we should save our resources and cap space for an offseason move for Parise or Weber. If we get a new owner there is no doubt we will be signing a big time free agent in the offseason with the year we are having this year. Give Perron, Oshie, Bergulnd, Petro, and Stewart one more year to develop, plus add a big time free agent and I believe next year could be our year. That being said, Im curious if you could choose what would you rather have, a big time d-man like Weber or an imapct forward like Parise?

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 02:46 PM
  #440
Celtic Note
Moderator
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,576
vCash: 500
MOD Note: This isn't headed anywhere productive. Locked.

Celtic Note is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:05 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.