Ha! Well because the other expansion possibilities (Seattle, KC, Quebec City) didn't have their house in order. With $500 million from Vegas sitting on the table, the league wasn't going to wait. It's not ideal, but they're taking it one step at a time with the understanding that eventually another team (and another $500 million) will be added at some point.
Vegas will do what's best for Vegas. Armstrong mentioned his good relationship with Vegas GM George McPhee as being a reason why this could work, and perhaps that will help, but McPhee is not doing his job if he's not putting the Golden Knights' prospects in the best possible position. And we're not even factoring in that Vegas is going to be dealing with some of the same issues with the Wolves that the Blues had with them. This is new to the Blues and I've never covered a situation like this, so I don't think anyone can say with certainty how it's going to play out, but it's not good. As far as the remaining Blues prospects who don't get spots with the Wolves, Armstrong said he's been in touch with other AHL teams who are receptive to the idea of housing some of the Blues' prospects on loan.
Well, they put in the embellishment penalty and called it fairly regularly (though wrongly at times) and fined players beyond the penalties they've received. Still, it continues. I've heard nothing from GMs, coaches, players or anyone about the need for further discipline to get a better handle on it, so I don't think they see it as a major problem right now. I agree that when we do see obvious examples, it's beyond comprehension that it exists. But again, I don't think we're seeing it so often that it's needs to be the top priority at GM meetings like we see with other issues that pop up.
What??? You don't like Mr. Charles Glenn? C'mon man!
No disrespect to the teams and their fans, both are passionate cities. But yeah, I think they will be passing out barf bags at NBC and at the league headquarters.
The Preds haven't been on top of their game as they were against the Blues and Chicago, but that's part of playing in the third round. The competition is greater, the opponents have had more time to see what you're doing and everybody is fatigued and playing on adrenaline. The games that I've seen, including the comeback last night, the Preds have put some heavy pressure on Anaheim, but that hasn't been the whole series. But give Anaheim some credit and also realize that it's hard to play on top of your game like Nashville did in the first two series.
I understand your point. I'm not even saying that they're losing money. They definitely have built up some equity. But those values established by Forbes are just values. The Blues don't want to see, but if they did, could they get $270 tomorrow? I don't know. They couldn't get more than $130 a few years ago. So yeah, they're in better shape, but they've put themselves in better shape even though they've been operating with less revenue than they could have if Checketts hadn't taken the up-front deals.
I mentioned Bylsma and Therrien because of Yeo's past history with them, but I don't know that either would consider the role. After hearing Armstrong praise the jobs by Berube, Sydor and Daniel Tkaczuk, I almost fully expect two or all three of them to get the jobs.
There's an ongoing lawsuit with former NHL players that is playing out as we speak. You're right, there isn't as much talk about it, especially compared to the NFL, but it hasn't gone away. The decrease in fighting might have minor part in that, but the concussion issue in the NHL is still alive and well.
It's not that the Blues didn't want to invest in that. It's that the deal expired and the Wolves had a better option. The Blues could have invested all they wanted, but there wasn't a home for them. We can definitely criticize the team for putting itself in this position, but once their other options (KC, etc.) fell through, they didn't have a place to go.
You can lose the faceoff battle and still win, yeah. The Blues got killed against Minnesota and won the series. But if you lose the faceoff battle that badly over the course of the regular season or throughout the entire playoffs, you're not going to win that many games. It might be the difference of 5-6 faceoff wins per game. Well, that's 492 over an 82-game schedule and 168 over a 28-game playoff schedule. It only takes a couple to score and in an age when most playoff games are one-goal finishes, that's a huge difference.
I don't have enough info to call it dead. But I believe that the plan for ownership in KC fell through. I don't think the Blues are interested in buying an AHL franchise or establishing an expansion AHL franchise. I believe they're looking for an independently-owned club. Whether that can still in happen in KC, I just don't know right now.
Re-reading his question, you're probably right that that was his point. Answering that, I'll say that AHL franchises are not money-makers, that's why the Blues got out of Peoria. Some people might say, 'Well, don't worry about making money, just have a place for your prospects that you can control.' You're right and that makes sense, but probably for the bigger-market teams that's not an issue. For the Blues, trying to survive in a smaller market, it's more of an issue. If the Blues can forge a relationship like they had with the Wolves early on, that's probably the best scenario. They're not going to find another deal like they had last year, controlling the Wolves, but again that's because the Wolves didn't have any options.
That's ECHL, not the same.
Some NHL franchises have done that and succeeded, but from what I've heard from multiple Blues owners over the years is that it doesn't make sense for St. Louis. Very few lower levels of hockey have excelled at selling tickets in St. Louis. Secondly, if the Blues own the St. Charles team, you're taking potential ticket buyers away from your own product. I realize people are going to Blues games if that's what they want to do, but for a franchise that fights to fill the building, having a cheaper alternative for hockey fans to get their fix might not be a great idea ... that's what I've been told by people in charge of making those decisions.
I don't get it either. I didn't get how he wasn't pulled out of that game. I know he said he ogt the wind knocked out of him one night, not a concussion, but to not even leave the game??? The league established a new protocol with spotters in the arena and I don't know that we can say that we've seen it have an effect. So to answer your question, it has been taking out of the players' and coaches' hands, but we still see situations like Crosby's.
Bishop is a huge upgrade in Dallas. The Stars may not push for the division but with Hitch's knowledge of the division and a goaltender who can stop the puck, they'll be much improved.
I think Williams should be on the Blues' radar. I know he was part of the roster that didn't get it done in Washington, but he's an established veteran who plays the right wing, where they could use somebody and he wouldn't cost a ton.
That is true and that is why it might work for one year. But in knowing the relationship between the Blues and Wolves, how can anybody think that that will turn out positive?
Perron had 18 goals in the regular season and was one of the better bargains in free agency. The postseason didn't help him, but that's how it goes sometimes. The Blues didn't get much help from any of their "secondary" scorers. As far as the protected list, I think it's more complicated than just saying he's one of the Blues' more consistently hardworking players. We know that Tarasenko, Schwartz, Steen, Stastny, Berglund and Sobotka will be protected. I'm sure some will question Berglund and/or Sobotka, but they just signed both to salary-cap friendly deals, so they're going to hang onto them. Then you have to decide between Perron/Reaves/Jaskin/Lehtera/Brodziak for one spot. Some people like Perron and I do too, but there are more Perron's available in free agency than Reaves, I believe. Let's say you leave Reaves unprotected and Vegas snatches him. So the Blues show up to training camp next year and look around thinking, 'Who's protecting anybody?' I realize fighting is down, but we'll never know what doesn't happen on the ice to guys like Tarasenko until Reaves isn't here. And with a guy like Reaves, who can play a little too and is one of the Blues' better forecheckers, they don't grow on trees. I actually think the Blues would consider protecting Jaskin out of that group. So I think there's a lot more to consider than the effort we see from a guy because I agree, Perron does give you that most nights.
I'm staying with Nashville.
I'll take one more question and then I'm off to reward my 7-year-old daughter with an ice cream after wrapping up the 2nd grade today.
I typed up an answer and just lost, so let's try this again ... give me a minute please!
Steen is definitely one and there are others. Was Armstrong possibly referring to some players looking out for themselves? Sure. That's where the term "Independent contractors" comes into play. But I think he was also referring to the fact that the players weren't looking past their resentment for the coaching situation (Hitch) and just playing. They were too caught up in whatever resentment they had for him and not playing for the crest that way. They certainly did that under Yeo and I think that proved Armstrong's point.
My original answer to that last question was amazing but no one will ever see it. It's always difficult to duplicate it, but I did my best. You only had to wait 10 minutes for it. Thanks for the questions and hopefully I didn't make anyone dumber with the answers. Time to eat some ice cream, I mean time for my daughter to eat some ice cream. Have a great weekend!