HFBoards

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

What Happened to the Jarmo Contract Extension?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-25-2007, 07:41 AM
  #26
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
1. "Love Pleau" ... I knew that would come up at some point. When all else fails, pull out the personal attacks.
2. Again ... who was going to take Demitra, knowing the league was headed into a lockout that had no signs of ending anytime soon?
3. Again ... Demitra wasn't the only big-name guy allowed to walk, what about all of those guys?
4. Tell you what: if Jarmo Kekalainen ever gives a demand like you suggest, I'll leave HF. Permanently. That is how confident I am that it'll never happen.
5. I have no idea what question I jumped around, but I certainly didn't see responses to

-- Who was going to take over for Quenneville?
-- Who was going to take Demitra and his $6.5M qualifying offer headed into the lockout [add: and he was eligible for arbitration] when no one had any idea what the league's financial situation was going to look like post-lockout?

I'll also await your comments on how Keenan was going to do to Demitra that Quenneville sorry - Pleau [because it's apparently Pleau's fault] didn't do while realizing that Blues fans were staying away in droves at the end of the Keenan era, making an irrefutable statement about how willing they were to support a Blues organization that had Keenan at the helm.
"When all else fails?" No, I made enough examples of Pleau....I was just reminding you how much you love Pleau.

2) "Who was going to take Demitra knowing a lockout was coming?" His first 3 playoff runs were in 97, 98 and 99....what the hell does those years have to do with his outragoeous money he was making 5 years later????????????????????????????????????
Again, going back to my point that you really love Pleau....because my point was he should have been traded in the late 90s.

3) Again, I am not talking about unloading in 2004 before the lockout!

"Who I wanted instead of Joel Quenneville?" Darryl Sutter

"Who was going to take Demitra and his $6.5M qualifying offer headed into the lockout [add: and he was eligible for arbitration] when no one had any idea what the league's financial situation was going to look like post-lockout?"

You asked this question 3 times...so I will answer your quesiton 3 times...

His first 3 playoff runs were in 97, 98 and 99....what the hell does those years have to do with his outragoeous money he was making 5 years later????????????????????????????????????
Again, going back to my point that you really love Pleau....because my point was he should have been traded in the late 90s.

My point about Demitra under Keenan was, if he would have had him in 97, 98, and 99...Keenan would have been up Demitra's A$$ to perform in the playoffs, UNLIKE QUENNEVILLE (like Keenan did SO many times with his Flyers, Blackhawks and Rangers players that he took to the Stanley Cup Finals). And if that would not have worked...Keenan, UNLIKE LARRY PLEAU, would have shipped him out WELL before 2004 and his bloated salary!!

HENCE MY BLAMING LARRY PLEAU AND QUENNEVILLE ON DEMITRA.


Last edited by TrustInJarmo*: 04-25-2007 at 09:31 AM.
TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 08:03 AM
  #27
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
No, I've actually been a pretty solid critic of Pleau - but you'd have to have been around to see those comments. By no means do I think even given the meddling that Thomas did was Pleau a "good" GM, but ... well, keep calling me a Pleau lover if that helps you with your self-esteem. But enough of that - let's move on to your "points" ...

So now we should have traded Demitra in the late 90s?
In 1998 he was 22-30-52 in 61 games in his first full NHL season, and was 3-3-6 in 10 playoff games; the following year, he was 37-52-89 in 82 games, 5-4-9 in 13 playoff games ... but we should have traded him then? He actually (for once, retrospectively) had better stats in the '99 series vs. Dallas (3-2-5, 6 games) than he did in the opening series (2-2-4, 7 games) ... and at that point in time you would have shipped him out?

No, you didn't answer my question (because your assertion that we should have dealt Pavol in the late 90s is thoroughly absurd, as pointed out above), so I'll ask for a 3rd time: who was going to take Demitra knowing he was making $6.5 million already, was arbitration eligible, and the league was headed into a lockout?

Sutter: Darryl Sutter took over as coach/GM of the Flames on December 28, 2002 - he was with the Sharks before that, getting fired on December 1, 2002. He was never an option at the point in time which it became apparent that Q wasn't the guy who was going to get things done here. (Unless you're going to suggest he should have been canned after Sutter got canned so we could go after Darryl, in which case )

If I have to explain why saying that [we should have canned Q in the 27-day period in December of the '02-03 season when Sutter was available] would be pointless, it'll only clarify my current belief that this discussion is going to be pointless ... so I have a better idea. How about we switch places, and you argue for Pleau while I argue against him? If you don't want to do that, then at least try to bring a fact or two into this discussion to keep me interested.

__________________
No promises this time.
Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 08:34 AM
  #28
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo View Post
"When all else fails?" No, I made enough examples of Pleau....I was just reminding you how much you love Pleau.

2) "Who was going to take Demitra knowing a lockout was coming?" His first 3 playoff runs were in 97, 98 and 99....what the hell does those years have to do with his outragoeous money he was making 5 years later????????????????????????????????????
Again, going back to my point that you really love Pleau....because my point was he should have been traded in the late 90s.
1) In Demitra's first 3 years of PO's he went 9-10-19 in 29 games played.
He was tied for 2nd on the team in PO points in 97.
6th on the team in 98 and 4th on the team in 99.

WHY would we trade a player who was (in reality) one of our better PO performers?

2) If you trade Demitra back in the 90's(when he was BY FAR our most talented player and the ONLY winger on the team that was reliable for producing more than 50 points) WHO REPLACES HIS POINTS? If not for Demitra we DON'T MAKE THE PO"s from 1998-2004. He was THAT big a part of our offense. You can't just dump a player like that and not replace him. It's ludicrous to even suggest that.

And before you say it; It's also ludicrous to suggest that we could have gotten an equal talent on the FA market. Demitra was making sub-2 mil figures at that time(he was in his very early 20's) and no scorer in the League would have taken that to come here.

The bottom line on Demitra is that we COULDN'T AFFORD TO MOVE HIM. The ONLY reason he's gone now is because of the Laurie purge. Our letting him walk had VERY little to do with his PO production. That line is every bit as much a cover-up as Sauer's "Pronger wanted too much money" statements last summer.



Quote:
"Who was going to take over for Joel Quenneville?" Darryl Sutter

I think San Jose might have had a problem with us taking their Head Coach; and I KNOW Calgary would have a problem with us taking their HC/GM.

Try again.

Quote:
His first 3 playoff runs were in 97, 98 and 99....what the hell does those years have to do with his outragoeous money he was making 5 years later????????????????????????????????????

Because Demitra didn't start choking in the PO until the 2000-2001 season(ironically; that was the 1st year he and Tkachuk were together; coincidence?).

Quote:
My point about Demitra under Keenan was, if he would have had him in 97, 98, and 99...Keenan would have been up Demitra's A$$ to perform in the playoffs, UNLIKE QUENNEVILLE (like Keenan did SO many times with his Flyers, Blackhawks and Rangers players that he took to the Stanley Cup Finals). And if that would not have worked...Keenan, UNLIKE LARRY PLEAU, would have shipped him out WELL before 2004 and his bloated salary!!
NO; he wouldn't have.
Keenan would have used Demitra as a weapon in his private war against Hull and the ownership just like he did with Pronger. It would have taken a direct order from On High to make Keenan trade off one of his "Golden Child's"; and anybody with even a SMALL amount of knowledge of what Keenan was up to could tell you this.

If Keenan were that fixated on PO performance he would have traded off Geoff Courtnall the second he got here(Courtnall's PO numbers are almost an identical pace to what Demitra's produced thus far in his career; and Demitra actually has a high Goal per game rate).

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 09:12 AM
  #29
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
1) In Demitra's first 3 years of PO's he went 9-10-19 in 29 games played.
He was tied for 2nd on the team in PO points in 97.
6th on the team in 98 and 4th on the team in 99.

WHY would we trade a player who was (in reality) one of our better PO performers?

2) If you trade Demitra back in the 90's(when he was BY FAR our most talented player and the ONLY winger on the team that was reliable for producing more than 50 points) WHO REPLACES HIS POINTS? If not for Demitra we DON'T MAKE THE PO"s from 1998-2004. He was THAT big a part of our offense. You can't just dump a player like that and not replace him. It's ludicrous to even suggest that.

And before you say it; It's also ludicrous to suggest that we could have gotten an equal talent on the FA market. Demitra was making sub-2 mil figures at that time(he was in his very early 20's) and no scorer in the League would have taken that to come here.

The bottom line on Demitra is that we COULDN'T AFFORD TO MOVE HIM. The ONLY reason he's gone now is because of the Laurie purge. Our letting him walk had VERY little to do with his PO production. That line is every bit as much a cover-up as Sauer's "Pronger wanted too much money" statements last summer.






I think San Jose might have had a problem with us taking their Head Coach; and I KNOW Calgary would have a problem with us taking their HC/GM.

Try again.




Because Demitra didn't start choking in the PO until the 2000-2001 season(ironically; that was the 1st year he and Tkachuk were together; coincidence?).



NO; he wouldn't have.
Keenan would have used Demitra as a weapon in his private war against Hull and the ownership just like he did with Pronger. It would have taken a direct order from On High to make Keenan trade off one of his "Golden Child's"; and anybody with even a SMALL amount of knowledge of what Keenan was up to could tell you this.

If Keenan were that fixated on PO performance he would have traded off Geoff Courtnall the second he got here(Courtnall's PO numbers are almost an identical pace to what Demitra's produced thus far in his career; and Demitra actually has a high Goal per game rate).
Yes, In 98 and 99 Demitra had the points...but he was a -3 and a -5 and you could tell back than he wouldn't help out on the defensive zone. And worse you can tell back than how soft he was when the big games counted.

My point wasn't to trade Demitra when he was making nothing...But when Arbitration came around, there was a small window on when he could have been traded...right before arbiration, we should have sent him packing.

Sutter was hired by the Sharks about 6 months after we hired Quenneville. So I'm not sure what you are talking about "taking the Sharks coach"??? Sutter wasn't head coach anywhere in Jan 1997 before we hired Quenneville.

TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 09:14 AM
  #30
Prussian_Blue
Registered User
 
Prussian_Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo
Multiple instances of irrational and ineffective flailing...
Take my advice and quit while you're behind, sonny... you're owned on this particular thread.

P_B


Prussian_Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 09:21 AM
  #31
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
No, I've actually been a pretty solid critic of Pleau - but you'd have to have been around to see those comments. By no means do I think even given the meddling that Thomas did was Pleau a "good" GM, but ... well, keep calling me a Pleau lover if that helps you with your self-esteem. But enough of that - let's move on to your "points" ...

So now we should have traded Demitra in the late 90s?
In 1998 he was 22-30-52 in 61 games in his first full NHL season, and was 3-3-6 in 10 playoff games; the following year, he was 37-52-89 in 82 games, 5-4-9 in 13 playoff games ... but we should have traded him then? He actually (for once, retrospectively) had better stats in the '99 series vs. Dallas (3-2-5, 6 games) than he did in the opening series (2-2-4, 7 games) ... and at that point in time you would have shipped him out?

No, you didn't answer my question (because your assertion that we should have dealt Pavol in the late 90s is thoroughly absurd, as pointed out above), so I'll ask for a 3rd time: who was going to take Demitra knowing he was making $6.5 million already, was arbitration eligible, and the league was headed into a lockout?

Sutter: Darryl Sutter took over as coach/GM of the Flames on December 28, 2002 - he was with the Sharks before that, getting fired on December 1, 2002. He was never an option at the point in time which it became apparent that Q wasn't the guy who was going to get things done here. (Unless you're going to suggest he should have been canned after Sutter got canned so we could go after Darryl, in which case )

If I have to explain why saying that [we should have canned Q in the 27-day period in December of the '02-03 season when Sutter was available] would be pointless, it'll only clarify my current belief that this discussion is going to be pointless ... so I have a better idea. How about we switch places, and you argue for Pleau while I argue against him? If you don't want to do that, then at least try to bring a fact or two into this discussion to keep me interested.
Irish, make a list for me. Since you say you are such a critic in the past on Pleau. And you think everything I am blaming Pleau on is incorrect.

What is it that you believe that Pleau did do wrong??

TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 09:50 AM
  #32
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo View Post
Yes, In 98 and 99 Demitra had the points...but he was a -3 and a -5 and you could tell back than he wouldn't help out on the defensive zone. And worse you can tell back than how soft he was when the big games counted.
We KNEW before Demitra ever crossed the pond that he was soft and only good for one thing(scoring). Nobody ever realistically expected him to do otherwise. But you don't trade him JUST because of that. If that was the case players like Palffy, Bondra, Selanne, Kariya and AT LEAST a dozen other players would be moved every year.

Quote:
My point wasn't to trade Demitra when he was making nothing...But when Arbitration came around, there was a small window on when he could have been traded...right before arbiration, we should have sent him packing.
1) This is EXACTLY the time period IB was discussing so I think you need to rethink a few of your answers.

2) Show me the list of players that were traded going into an arbitration case(here's a hint; this list is VERY small).
NOW; of that list show me ONE player that was even CLOSE to Demitra's level(I'll laugh in your face if you say Stillman).

Let put this to you VERY simply:
GM's do not like taking on players who are headed to arbitration. If they do they are practically HANDING the player the case as they simply don't have the resources to win without first hand knowledge of the player. It is dumb for a GM to take on a player like that; and it dumb to suggest that Pleau SHOULD have made a move like that. There is absolute no logical backing to this kind of statement; NONE.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 09:55 AM
  #33
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
I am fairly neutral on Demitra – he contributed goals and assists at far more key times in PO games than Tkachuk during his career. However, he didn’t do so at an overwhelming or consistent rate. For example, in 1998 his 3 goals in 10 games were all in the LA sweep – two coming in the game one 8-3 blowout and none being part of that miracle 4-goal comeback in game three.

But against Detroit a round later he had a grand total of 2 assists, one in the 6-1 game two loss and one in the 5-2 game four loss. There was a feeling about that team that if we got by Detroit we could have gone a long way. I recall it being one of the most disappointing series losses in the 25-year stretch. We really needed him that series and he wasn’t there.

In all, Demitra gets a worse rap than he should, but some of it is merited.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 10:05 AM
  #34
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
We KNEW before Demitra ever crossed the pond that he was soft and only good for one thing(scoring). Nobody ever realistically expected him to do otherwise. But you don't trade him JUST because of that. If that was the case players like Palffy, Bondra, Selanne, Kariya and AT LEAST a dozen other players would be moved every year.



1) This is EXACTLY the time period IB was discussing so I think you need to rethink a few of your answers.

2) Show me the list of players that were traded going into an arbitration case(here's a hint; this list is VERY small).
NOW; of that list show me ONE player that was even CLOSE to Demitra's level(I'll laugh in your face if you say Stillman).

Let put this to you VERY simply:
GM's do not like taking on players who are headed to arbitration. If they do they are practically HANDING the player the case as they simply don't have the resources to win without first hand knowledge of the player. It is dumb for a GM to take on a player like that; and it dumb to suggest that Pleau SHOULD have made a move like that. There is absolute no logical backing to this kind of statement; NONE.
"2) Show me the list of players that were traded going into an arbitration case(here's a hint; this list is VERY small).
NOW; of that list show me ONE player that was even CLOSE to Demitra's level(I'll laugh in your face if you say Stillman)."

Ok, I will back off on the Demtira Pleau arguement. Maybe you guys are right. Maybe it's not fair to put all the blame on Pleau. But even though the list is small..why couldn't we have traded him?

"GM's do not like taking on players who are headed to arbitration. If they do they are practically HANDING the player the case" I dont' understand this...

TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 11:56 AM
  #35
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo View Post
What is it that you believe that Pleau did do wrong??
(cracks knuckes) By no means is this a complete list - this is what I came up with in about 15 minutes with a small amount of digging:

1. When the goaltending clearly wasn't up to par in 1999, the solution was ....... Jim Carey. There was also the failed Tom Barrasso experiment in 2002. There were never many "good" options available in the offseason (Hasek was the best chance we had, and ownership put the ix-nay on that), but Pleau didn't have to keep going to guys whose best years were 3-5 years prior and who were clearly finished.

2. Notable guys we should have never signed: Vladimir Chebaturkin (waste), Mike Keane (brought in for leadership, even though we already had 8 guys who were supposed to be leaders), Rich Pilon (no explanation needed), Steve Dubinsky (marginal NHL'er at best, mostly talent-impaired), Murray Baron (after his work in the 2003 playoffs, despite the fact that he was clearly on the decline). I also fondly recall the Ted Donato era (all 2 games of it). Sean Hill would go here, except ...

3. Hill had an injury-plagued 2000-01, and then after he apparently didn't fit into Quenneville's plans, he was dealt to Carolina for ....... Steven Halko, who went on to do nothing for the Blues.

4. Yes, Mike Van Ryn was overpaid making $1 million as a #5/6 defenseman .... but Valeri Bure? Really?

5. Petr Smrek for Alexei Gusarov. Yes, Smrek went on to do little - but Gusarov was an absolute liability who was beyond brutal in the Colorado series and wasn't exactly playing even adequately before we acquired him; I'm sure he could have played worse for us in the playoffs, but it would have been tough.

6. The last few years of the Mike Eastwood era, when it was clear that Eastwood wasn't the vaunted faceoff specialist he was hyped as being - especially on critical faceoffs.

7. The one glaring hole I thought this team had that Pleau never got filled was having someone who was a legitimate #3 defenseman and provided a threat from the point on the 2nd PP unit. Todd Gill filled it nicely down the stretch in 1998, but was never going to be a long-term solution; Hill was signed after a 13-goal season in 1999 (a contract year) and might have been the closest attempt, but he had a grand total of eighteen (18) goals in 338 games before that '99 season, 15 of those with lousy expansion teams (Anaheim and Ottawa before they got good; he went on to score 7-23-30 in 44 games with Carolina ... at the end of his contract IIRC. The other time he ever topped 7 goals? Yeah - that was a contract year, too.)

Had this team found that guy, it would have opened things up on special teams and probably opened things up 5-on-5, forcing teams to decide whether they were going to key on MacInnis, Pronger, or that other guy. It also probably would have helped come playoff time, when special teams is important and shutting down the top line can kill a team's playoff hopes - because we would have had someone keying another line, making it just as dangerous.

8. Quenneville should have gotten the shaft after his outburst in the 2003 playoffs where he blew up at the team for squandering a 3-1 series lead, blaming everyone else and refusing to take any of the blame for the collapse. After that, there were 3 signs that Quenneville had either lost control of the team or was losing control of the team:
-- December 4, when the Blues blew a 4-0 lead to Detroit at home and had to hang on for dear life to salvage a 4-4 tie; that game signaled that we weren't going to be able to contend with Detroit with Quenneville at the helm, and getting past Detroit was likely going to be a necessity if we were going to do anything in the playoffs, and as Detroit mounted its comeback Quenneville was utterly clueless on what to do other than scream at everyone on the bench,
-- December 30, when the Blues were utterly routed 7-2 by Philadelphia (the point in time at which the mid-season collapse really started); the team was horrible from start to finish,
-- January 28, the end of a 6-game stretch that saw the Blues struggle to a 2-2 tie vs. Minnesota and a 2-1 win over Florida, then play disinterested hockey in losses to Columbus, Dallas twice, and culminated with a 1-1 tie vs. Atlanta where the team was largely outplayed much of the game. At this point the team had gone 5-10-2 since December 20, and slid from 2nd in the West and 2 points back of Detroit with six games in hand to 5th in the West but only 2 points ahead of 9th-place Los Angeles.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 12:13 PM
  #36
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo View Post
"GM's do not like taking on players who are headed to arbitration. If they do they are practically HANDING the player the case" I dont' understand this...
That's because you don't understand arbitration.
In arbitration both parties present arguements on why the player should get X amount. IF a team doesn't have first hand knowledge of the player it will be VERY difficult to convince the judge to rule on their side(off-hand I can't think of ANY instances where a player lost an arbitration case after being traded). Trying to base an arguement strictly on the stat sheet is difficult; especially when the player can bring up the spcifics of those stats and paint them in a better light.

Of the VERY few players that have been traded pre-arbitration; almost all of them were in a situation where their team knew it was going to lose and found a team willing to take on the contract(see Stillman; and even this trade was initiated as part of the Laurie purge(although I think this was a fine peice of manuevering by Pleau as we ended up with Backes out of the deal)). It just doesn't make ANY sense for a team to trade a player if they think they have a shot at winning the arbitration case; and it kills your leverage when you DO try make a pre-arbitration trade. Either way; trading player who are slated for arbitration is not sensical(I could have sworn there was a thread on this subject either on the Main board or the Trade Rumors Board but it seems to have been purged).

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 12:57 PM
  #37
vatali
Life Long Slacker
 
vatali's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Middle of nowhere
Country: United States
Posts: 476
vCash: 500
You know, IB, I thouth the Blues should have fired Quinnville after the 2000 debacle vs the Sharks. I have never seen a team come out so flat. Sure the puck bounced the Sharks way the whole series, but man, that dead was dead coming out of the locker room.

vatali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 01:57 PM
  #38
2ForRoughing*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
off topic a bit but I'm curious about your sig, Vitali. Why should we always remember Prokhorov? Aside from the fact that he was never given a fair shake as a Blue by Berry or by Keenan, what did he do to warrant being "remembered?" Or is it hipster 20-something irony that I'm missing? I'm so old.

2ForRoughing* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 02:28 PM
  #39
vatali
Life Long Slacker
 
vatali's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Middle of nowhere
Country: United States
Posts: 476
vCash: 500
My GF baby sat his kids, then one day he was just up and gone, no note, no we are leaving, just poof, like he died. Hell, he left half of his furniture. Next thing we know he is back at home in Russia with his family. never got an explination.

Maybe I should put Ed Kea instead?

vatali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 09:03 PM
  #40
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
(cracks knuckes) By no means is this a complete list - this is what I came up with in about 15 minutes with a small amount of digging:

1. When the goaltending clearly wasn't up to par in 1999, the solution was ....... Jim Carey. There was also the failed Tom Barrasso experiment in 2002. There were never many "good" options available in the offseason (Hasek was the best chance we had, and ownership put the ix-nay on that), but Pleau didn't have to keep going to guys whose best years were 3-5 years prior and who were clearly finished.

2. Notable guys we should have never signed: Vladimir Chebaturkin (waste), Mike Keane (brought in for leadership, even though we already had 8 guys who were supposed to be leaders), Rich Pilon (no explanation needed), Steve Dubinsky (marginal NHL'er at best, mostly talent-impaired), Murray Baron (after his work in the 2003 playoffs, despite the fact that he was clearly on the decline). I also fondly recall the Ted Donato era (all 2 games of it). Sean Hill would go here, except ...

3. Hill had an injury-plagued 2000-01, and then after he apparently didn't fit into Quenneville's plans, he was dealt to Carolina for ....... Steven Halko, who went on to do nothing for the Blues.

4. Yes, Mike Van Ryn was overpaid making $1 million as a #5/6 defenseman .... but Valeri Bure? Really?

5. Petr Smrek for Alexei Gusarov. Yes, Smrek went on to do little - but Gusarov was an absolute liability who was beyond brutal in the Colorado series and wasn't exactly playing even adequately before we acquired him; I'm sure he could have played worse for us in the playoffs, but it would have been tough.

6. The last few years of the Mike Eastwood era, when it was clear that Eastwood wasn't the vaunted faceoff specialist he was hyped as being - especially on critical faceoffs.

7. The one glaring hole I thought this team had that Pleau never got filled was having someone who was a legitimate #3 defenseman and provided a threat from the point on the 2nd PP unit. Todd Gill filled it nicely down the stretch in 1998, but was never going to be a long-term solution; Hill was signed after a 13-goal season in 1999 (a contract year) and might have been the closest attempt, but he had a grand total of eighteen (18) goals in 338 games before that '99 season, 15 of those with lousy expansion teams (Anaheim and Ottawa before they got good; he went on to score 7-23-30 in 44 games with Carolina ... at the end of his contract If I recall correctly. The other time he ever topped 7 goals? Yeah - that was a contract year, too.)

Had this team found that guy, it would have opened things up on special teams and probably opened things up 5-on-5, forcing teams to decide whether they were going to key on MacInnis, Pronger, or that other guy. It also probably would have helped come playoff time, when special teams is important and shutting down the top line can kill a team's playoff hopes - because we would have had someone keying another line, making it just as dangerous.

8. Quenneville should have gotten the shaft after his outburst in the 2003 playoffs where he blew up at the team for squandering a 3-1 series lead, blaming everyone else and refusing to take any of the blame for the collapse. After that, there were 3 signs that Quenneville had either lost control of the team or was losing control of the team:
-- December 4, when the Blues blew a 4-0 lead to Detroit at home and had to hang on for dear life to salvage a 4-4 tie; that game signaled that we weren't going to be able to contend with Detroit with Quenneville at the helm, and getting past Detroit was likely going to be a necessity if we were going to do anything in the playoffs, and as Detroit mounted its comeback Quenneville was utterly clueless on what to do other than scream at everyone on the bench,
-- December 30, when the Blues were utterly routed 7-2 by Philadelphia (the point in time at which the mid-season collapse really started); the team was horrible from start to finish,
-- January 28, the end of a 6-game stretch that saw the Blues struggle to a 2-2 tie vs. Minnesota and a 2-1 win over Florida, then play disinterested hockey in losses to Columbus, Dallas twice, and culminated with a 1-1 tie vs. Atlanta where the team was largely outplayed much of the game. At this point the team had gone 5-10-2 since December 20, and slid from 2nd in the West and 2 points back of Detroit with six games in hand to 5th in the West but only 2 points ahead of 9th-place Los Angeles.
Very good.

TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2007, 09:04 PM
  #41
TrustInJarmo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
That's because you don't understand arbitration.
In arbitration both parties present arguements on why the player should get X amount. IF a team doesn't have first hand knowledge of the player it will be VERY difficult to convince the judge to rule on their side(off-hand I can't think of ANY instances where a player lost an arbitration case after being traded). Trying to base an arguement strictly on the stat sheet is difficult; especially when the player can bring up the spcifics of those stats and paint them in a better light.

Of the VERY few players that have been traded pre-arbitration; almost all of them were in a situation where their team knew it was going to lose and found a team willing to take on the contract(see Stillman; and even this trade was initiated as part of the Laurie purge(although I think this was a fine peice of manuevering by Pleau as we ended up with Backes out of the deal)). It just doesn't make ANY sense for a team to trade a player if they think they have a shot at winning the arbitration case; and it kills your leverage when you DO try make a pre-arbitration trade. Either way; trading player who are slated for arbitration is not sensical(I could have sworn there was a thread on this subject either on the Main board or the Trade Rumors Board but it seems to have been purged).
Thanks for the explanation on why it would have been tough to trade Demitra. Makes more sense now.

TrustInJarmo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 09:43 AM
  #42
2ForRoughing*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustInJarmo View Post
Thanks for the explanation on why it would have been tough to trade Demitra. Makes more sense now.
don't take take it hard, TrustInJarmo, IB was wrestling wolves when you was still sucking at your mother's teet. (Simpson's reference) roughly translated I mean: IB wields formidable understanding of a vast many number of areas where hockey in general and the NHL in particular is concerned. Honestly the only area where I'll even take him on is in player evaluation and that's if I've seen the player enough to have a great deal of confidence in my assessment of them.

2ForRoughing* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:10 AM
  #43
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ForRoughing View Post
don't take take it hard, TrustInJarmo, IB was wrestling wolves when you was still sucking at your mother's teet.
I'm crying, I'm laughing so hard.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 03:55 PM
  #44
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
2. Notable guys we should have never signed: Vladimir Chebaturkin (waste),
You have just undone many years of therapy. Thanks.

210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 05:56 PM
  #45
MU_Beerman
Registered User
 
MU_Beerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 480
vCash: 500
I may be extremely foolish for posting this, but nobody on here wants to know what happened to Prokhorov. Let your imagination run wild.

MU_Beerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 06:15 PM
  #46
Prussian_Blue
Registered User
 
Prussian_Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MU_Beerman
I may be extremely foolish for posting this, but nobody on here wants to know what happened to Prokhorov. Let your imagination run wild.
Speak for yourself, Mizzou... I, for one, was always a fan of Prokhorov, and always felt that he got a raw deal from the idiot Keenan.

In one season under Bob Berry (1993-94), Prokohorov scored 15 goals in 55 games, on only 85 shots -- a 17.6% shooting percentage that was the best on the team. He was also a minus-6, better than Shanahan (minus-9) and Janney (minus-14).

There was no reason why he should not have gotten a role on the 1994-95 team under Adolf, but instead he got two games before being shipped off to Peoria while refuse like Donald Dufresne, Bill Houlder, Todd Elik, Greg Gilbert and Adam Creighton all got major roles...

Kevin Miller got the shaft from Adolf, too...

P_B


Prussian_Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 06:29 PM
  #47
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Prokhorov did have 2 goals in the 11-1 obliteration of Ottawa in the '93-94 season ... and I bet combined both shots weren't going 10 mph.

And remember - Adam Creighton was leading the NHL in scoring at one point during the 1995 season. (About the first 2-3 nights IIRC, thanks to a 5-point game on the opening night of the season.)

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 07:13 PM
  #48
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,550
vCash: 500
I don't think that Kekalainen is ready to assume ALL the duties of a GM (which includes a lot of business dealings). J.D, as President, is assuming some of the player personnel duties, and Kekalainen handles some of them as Assist. GM. Pleau, with his wife's illness, will be doing less this coming year, but I think The Blues will keep him one more year before he retires, or takes only a less active "consulting" position. Maybe kekalainen will be offered the FULL GM job after this coming season.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 09:25 PM
  #49
2ForRoughing*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian_Blue View Post
Speak for yourself, Mizzou... I, for one, was always a fan of Prokhorov, and always felt that he got a raw deal from the idiot Keenan.

In one season under Bob Berry (1993-94), Prokohorov scored 15 goals in 55 games, on only 85 shots -- a 17.6% shooting percentage that was the best on the team. He was also a minus-6, better than Shanahan (minus-9) and Janney (minus-14).

There was no reason why he should not have gotten a role on the 1994-95 team under Adolf, but instead he got two games before being shipped off to Peoria while refuse like Donald Dufresne, Bill Houlder, Todd Elik, Greg Gilbert and Adam Creighton all got major roles...

Kevin Miller got the shaft from Adolf, too...

P_B


I agree 100% with this post. Vitali could have been a player in the NHL except for Keenan and a wonky shoulder. It's ashame. He had real talent.

2ForRoughing* 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 07:33 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.