I personally don’t hate the Bannister hire I thought he did a good job with what he had last year and I don’t think we’re a top coach away from being cup contenders.
iNeedScissorsSixty7
I think I’d move the Texier one up a tier. He was a 45th overall pick and I think a change of scenery would be good for someone with his upside. I also didn’t hate the Bannister hire, and I think I would switch Kap and Faksa. Faksa is a good penalty killer who is also pretty good on the faceoff dot.
alexgetty
Claude Julien being brought in is an underrated move in my book. I can agree with most except the Bannister hiring. I don’t mind giving this guy a shot. He’s worked with the guys before, he’s a younger coach, how his hiring got an F is beyond me. I’d put it in the B/C category because we just don’t know what will happen with a full season under his belt.
HodorsThoughts
If I had to grade them I’d put the Suter move lower, Holloway higher, and Bannister much higher.
micropterus_dolomieu
I think you’re too negative on Bannister (C) and Buch (A), and too positive on Broberg (A/B) and Perunovich (C). Otherwise I think you’ve assessed the moves well.
DangerDarrin
Bannister is appropriately ranked.
STL_bourbon
In what world are signing Buch and Perunovich considered equal?
BluesBrother57
We got Faksa for future considerations. He’s got 1 year left on a 5 years contract at a 3.25M cap hit. We’re paying him less than that because of his contract structure. Solid veteran depth for winning faceoffs and potential scratch we can flip in and out to rest guys. When we get hurt (and we will) Faksa will be pretty important to help fill the lineup if he’s not already in full time.
Not saying he’s S tier, but E seems pretty harsh for someone we acquired for free and has very low risk.
Mab_894
All the Cs should be Bs, Buch is an A, Bannister is like a C or C-, Faksa is a B, Hayes is a C due to what we gave up and trading for him initially
BlueRFR3100
Bannister an F? What criteria are you using?
myredditthrowaway201
Suter an A tier? Lmao
TheEarthmaster
I get people not liking Hayes and « sunk cost fallacy » and all that but I feel like that whole thing was too weird to be rated particularly high. They still needed a center (and helped out a division rival to get one that’s not even really an upgrade, a deal people apparently didn’t particularly like anyway according to this). The « asset management » of it all- from acquiring Hayes for a sixth, to having to PAY a 2nd to get rid of him, to deciding « oops we actually want that second back to do an offer sheet » and having to pay additional assets- not that any of those picks were like that important but like, still bizarre for a team supposedly in a retool. Seemed like changes for the sake of changes rather than actual coherent roster construction.
I’m moving that trade and the Suter signing down two tiers each. I’m bumping that Matheiu Joseph trade and Steen GM in waiting up a tier each. Joseph is a great depth player and they got a free third for him, dunno why that’s rated lower than paying to get rid of a player you had to immediately go replace anyway.
MrTuesdayNight1
I assume this is just ragebait for engagement.
Bannister’s hiring as an F is a total joke. Look at how well the team turned around with him at the helm and consider his strengths as a coach, comparing them with where the team currently is in it’s life cycle? Bannister makes a lot of sense.
If anything is an F it should be the Kapanen resigning. The Texier signing should be at least a B move. Suter’s hiring should be lower. He might be fine but there’s no way he’ll be an A-level signing. The Hayes trade wasn’t a good one on it’s own without the hindsight of knowing what the picks turned into. Faksa’s signing should be higher.
Snepsts
Personally, I’d: bump up Bannister a couple tiers, bump down Suter a tier, bump Perunovich down a tier, Texier up a tier. Holloway up a tier, too imo.
All in all tho not a bad list.
Brh3200
Why Bannister so low?
TheStuffle
Why is signing Bannister bad again?
Ninjapenguinart
I’d move Suter down to C or D. He’s a veteran depth piece and nothing more. Bannister up to C since it was essentially the expected outcome. Steen as GM in waiting to A because it’s showing commitment to the strategy and a transition period to ensure success. Perunivich resign as C and Buch resign as A. Perunivich has a make or bust year ahead of him. Buch resigning was a surprise but gives us three high upside forwards for a few years with really good cost controlled forwards ready to go.
Utahgetme02
You have Suter too high. Aging Defenseman who at best will just be a guide to the young guys.
And you have Bannister far too low. I at first wasn’t thrilled but when you look at how many head coach vacancies there were, he was going to snatched up by someone else. So then you’re stuck with maybe an experienced coach that is sucking elsewhere or a coach with no experience. You don’t want the latter at all. So why not give a hungry young coach familiar with the team a shot?
SouthSTLCityHoosier
I don’t think there was an S tier move tbh, and that’s fine considering that the Blues are loading up with prospects. I would put the Broberg/Halloway offer sheets in the A tier as an excellent, low risk move to get some very good depth for the future. I don’t think either will be All stars, but they’ll be solid depth. Claude Julien is a B tier move. It’s good to have his experience, but I don’t think an assistant coach gives the Blues a huge edge, and I think it indicates how short of a leash Bannister has, tbh. I think Bannister is a C move. He’s…fine. I think he at least earned a chance to coach this team for the near future, but he’s still largely unproven. No reason to do anything to change the status quo there imo. I think the Buch move is a C move. Resigning him is fine, but I’m not sure how much his prime lines up with the window. Kevin Hayes is a C move – addition by subtract, but we had to get our pick back from Pitt to make the offer sheets. The rest of the moves are really inconsequential for me to even rank. It’s all depth guys like the Joseph brothers, Suter, Kapanen, etc, which is fine around the margins but probably no difference as to whether or not the Blues make the playoffs. As much as this town loves scrappy third liners, they’re not going to move the needle 6 points to get you back into the playoffs.
g00dj0b
Suter is the F over Bannister IMO – he’s old and has nothing left to prove. Hope he proves me wrong.
Archer2755
Garbage
Internal-Ad-9401
Bannister that low is criminal. C or B at best but nowhere near an F. On top of it if Bannister struggles this year then we’ve got Claude waiting in the shadows to take over.
yodazer
In what world does signing Ryan Suter be above signing Buch? It may have been the most head scratching move this off-season. We have a log jam on defense, we signed more defenseman, plus Suter. Sure, he’s at league min, but why sign him? Honestly, it’s almost assuredly a D tier signing or below. Both make no sense and don’t move the needle.
In other areas:
broberg and Holloway should both be A tier – both are young and unproven, but incredibly cheap adds. It s unlikely these moves hurt the blues.
Buch resigning is S tier. Great team deal and has proven his worth.
Faksa is at least on par with c or b tier. He helps build the bottom six. Decent player with one more year of contract.
Finally, resigning bannister is not a F tier move. Do I think he wins us a cup? No. Do I think the blues can win a cup this year? Also no. I think he has a good reputation with the players and he hasn’t shown he can’t coach this team. D tier at worst, C tier realistically. Let the guy coach a year before we crucify him.
GetThemPucksInDeep
Buch signing is better than suter for sure.
I actually think Holloway ends up a better player for the blues than broberg.
25 Comments
Isn’t Holloway considered better than Broberg?
I personally don’t hate the Bannister hire I thought he did a good job with what he had last year and I don’t think we’re a top coach away from being cup contenders.
I think I’d move the Texier one up a tier. He was a 45th overall pick and I think a change of scenery would be good for someone with his upside. I also didn’t hate the Bannister hire, and I think I would switch Kap and Faksa. Faksa is a good penalty killer who is also pretty good on the faceoff dot.
Claude Julien being brought in is an underrated move in my book. I can agree with most except the Bannister hiring. I don’t mind giving this guy a shot. He’s worked with the guys before, he’s a younger coach, how his hiring got an F is beyond me. I’d put it in the B/C category because we just don’t know what will happen with a full season under his belt.
If I had to grade them I’d put the Suter move lower, Holloway higher, and Bannister much higher.
I think you’re too negative on Bannister (C) and Buch (A), and too positive on Broberg (A/B) and Perunovich (C). Otherwise I think you’ve assessed the moves well.
Bannister is appropriately ranked.
In what world are signing Buch and Perunovich considered equal?
We got Faksa for future considerations. He’s got 1 year left on a 5 years contract at a 3.25M cap hit. We’re paying him less than that because of his contract structure. Solid veteran depth for winning faceoffs and potential scratch we can flip in and out to rest guys. When we get hurt (and we will) Faksa will be pretty important to help fill the lineup if he’s not already in full time.
Not saying he’s S tier, but E seems pretty harsh for someone we acquired for free and has very low risk.
All the Cs should be Bs, Buch is an A, Bannister is like a C or C-, Faksa is a B, Hayes is a C due to what we gave up and trading for him initially
Bannister an F? What criteria are you using?
Suter an A tier? Lmao
I get people not liking Hayes and « sunk cost fallacy » and all that but I feel like that whole thing was too weird to be rated particularly high. They still needed a center (and helped out a division rival to get one that’s not even really an upgrade, a deal people apparently didn’t particularly like anyway according to this). The « asset management » of it all- from acquiring Hayes for a sixth, to having to PAY a 2nd to get rid of him, to deciding « oops we actually want that second back to do an offer sheet » and having to pay additional assets- not that any of those picks were like that important but like, still bizarre for a team supposedly in a retool. Seemed like changes for the sake of changes rather than actual coherent roster construction.
I’m moving that trade and the Suter signing down two tiers each. I’m bumping that Matheiu Joseph trade and Steen GM in waiting up a tier each. Joseph is a great depth player and they got a free third for him, dunno why that’s rated lower than paying to get rid of a player you had to immediately go replace anyway.
I assume this is just ragebait for engagement.
Bannister’s hiring as an F is a total joke. Look at how well the team turned around with him at the helm and consider his strengths as a coach, comparing them with where the team currently is in it’s life cycle? Bannister makes a lot of sense.
If anything is an F it should be the Kapanen resigning. The Texier signing should be at least a B move. Suter’s hiring should be lower. He might be fine but there’s no way he’ll be an A-level signing. The Hayes trade wasn’t a good one on it’s own without the hindsight of knowing what the picks turned into. Faksa’s signing should be higher.
Personally, I’d: bump up Bannister a couple tiers, bump down Suter a tier, bump Perunovich down a tier, Texier up a tier. Holloway up a tier, too imo.
All in all tho not a bad list.
Why Bannister so low?
Why is signing Bannister bad again?
I’d move Suter down to C or D. He’s a veteran depth piece and nothing more. Bannister up to C since it was essentially the expected outcome. Steen as GM in waiting to A because it’s showing commitment to the strategy and a transition period to ensure success. Perunivich resign as C and Buch resign as A. Perunivich has a make or bust year ahead of him. Buch resigning was a surprise but gives us three high upside forwards for a few years with really good cost controlled forwards ready to go.
You have Suter too high. Aging Defenseman who at best will just be a guide to the young guys.
And you have Bannister far too low. I at first wasn’t thrilled but when you look at how many head coach vacancies there were, he was going to snatched up by someone else. So then you’re stuck with maybe an experienced coach that is sucking elsewhere or a coach with no experience. You don’t want the latter at all. So why not give a hungry young coach familiar with the team a shot?
I don’t think there was an S tier move tbh, and that’s fine considering that the Blues are loading up with prospects. I would put the Broberg/Halloway offer sheets in the A tier as an excellent, low risk move to get some very good depth for the future. I don’t think either will be All stars, but they’ll be solid depth. Claude Julien is a B tier move. It’s good to have his experience, but I don’t think an assistant coach gives the Blues a huge edge, and I think it indicates how short of a leash Bannister has, tbh. I think Bannister is a C move. He’s…fine. I think he at least earned a chance to coach this team for the near future, but he’s still largely unproven. No reason to do anything to change the status quo there imo. I think the Buch move is a C move. Resigning him is fine, but I’m not sure how much his prime lines up with the window. Kevin Hayes is a C move – addition by subtract, but we had to get our pick back from Pitt to make the offer sheets. The rest of the moves are really inconsequential for me to even rank. It’s all depth guys like the Joseph brothers, Suter, Kapanen, etc, which is fine around the margins but probably no difference as to whether or not the Blues make the playoffs. As much as this town loves scrappy third liners, they’re not going to move the needle 6 points to get you back into the playoffs.
Suter is the F over Bannister IMO – he’s old and has nothing left to prove. Hope he proves me wrong.
Garbage
Bannister that low is criminal. C or B at best but nowhere near an F. On top of it if Bannister struggles this year then we’ve got Claude waiting in the shadows to take over.
In what world does signing Ryan Suter be above signing Buch? It may have been the most head scratching move this off-season. We have a log jam on defense, we signed more defenseman, plus Suter. Sure, he’s at league min, but why sign him? Honestly, it’s almost assuredly a D tier signing or below. Both make no sense and don’t move the needle.
In other areas:
broberg and Holloway should both be A tier – both are young and unproven, but incredibly cheap adds. It s unlikely these moves hurt the blues.
Buch resigning is S tier. Great team deal and has proven his worth.
Faksa is at least on par with c or b tier. He helps build the bottom six. Decent player with one more year of contract.
Finally, resigning bannister is not a F tier move. Do I think he wins us a cup? No. Do I think the blues can win a cup this year? Also no. I think he has a good reputation with the players and he hasn’t shown he can’t coach this team. D tier at worst, C tier realistically. Let the guy coach a year before we crucify him.
Buch signing is better than suter for sure.
I actually think Holloway ends up a better player for the blues than broberg.