Blues showing what they are made of

[Buffalo Rick]

Anyone that counts St Louis out of this thing had best go back and watch them play a couple of games.  This team is for real.  They are loaded with talent.  And the stingiest team in the NHL right now at stopping the opponent.  Jake Allen is on fire.  This kid they called up from the AHL to play with Teresenko is an example of how good a job management has done.  When Shattenkirk was traded everyone thought they were done.  Well watch Pietrangelo play on offense and Bowmeester play some D.  And see how tough this team is at the same time as smart with the puck and deeply talented on offense.  Guys like Teresenko and Steen and Swartz are the type that can score.  Sobotkva, Barbashev and Berglund are also top notch players.  And they are big and tough. The whole package.  The type of team that can go very deep in the playoffs.  I am hoping they can put the Wild down fast so they can be rested to take on the next opponent who is expected to be Chicago.  Getting through the West is tougher than the East IMO>  But they have the weapons and they have Jake Allen who is really some goalie. 

[flyercanuck]

With the talent they have, I don't think anyone has counted them out for years.

You've picked them to win it all about 5 years in a row now...and so far they've made it out of the 1st round once. 

[ruxpin]

I'm not counting them out. 

 

I'm saying if you want to make extremely likely money, bet against them. Not this round, though. I picked them against the Wild coming in, but that says more about how much I didn't like the way the Wild have been playing. 

[Buffalo Rick]

On 4/15/2017 at 2:25 PM, ruxpin said:

I'm not counting them out. 

 

I'm saying if you want to make extremely likely money, bet against them. Not this round, though. I picked them against the Wild coming in, but that says more about how much I didn't like the way the Wild have been playing. 

OK, bet against them?  Really?  Bet against the Cubs too right?  What are you basing this on?  Jake Allen is along with Lundquist and Price the best goalie in the playoffs.  But St Louis is  much more than that.  They are loaded.  I am going to ride this horse to the finish line.  Got it?  Why is everyone of the mentality that because Shattenkirk is gone its the end of the wold?  Gee, have you seen Pietrangelo play or Bowmeester?  Bowmeester is about defense first.  God forbid.  Pietrangelo is as good a QB type defseneman that is in the game. Then you look at what they have.  Teresenko, Steen, Berglund, Swartz, Barbashev, Sabotvka, Upshall and Perron.   Loaded.  No team scared me more than the Wild. Those were my two picks to come out of the West and I was just shocked when they wound up playing in the first round.  I cam calling this series the Western conference finals now.  The Blues now have a 3-0 commanding lead.  The Blackhawks are in shambles.  Now I suppose you will be on the Ducks bandwagon?  Do not be surprised if Calgary mounts a comeback.  Forget Shattenkirk and his role on the Blues.  All is not lost because he is gone

[ruxpin]

59 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

What are you basing this on?

 

First of all, my browser crashed during my first attempt at this, so any "tone" is directed there, not at you.

 

Track record.   I'll bet against them and be confident in that bet until proven otherwise. 

 

We go through this every single season.  I tell you they're doomed, you tell me I'm all wet, they shoot themselves in the foot, shake hands and go golfing, you don't acknowledge how easy a prediction this was all along, rinse, repeat the next season.

 

I think this is the 5th consecutive season of this.

 

You mention the Cubs.   That's actually not a ridiculous comparison.   Yes, I would bet against the Cubs until proven wrong.  They finally won.  So maybe that's changed.   And maybe this is the Blues' year.  Hell, the CUBS won, we elected a mutant carrot with no experience nor qualification to be president, and Bruce Jenner is still a guy.  Welcome to bizarre world where the impossible is suddenly probable.

 

The Cubs are a great comparison because in 50 years the Blues have won exactly nothing.   But like the Cubs, it wasn't just bad luck or lousy clubs.  Yeah, both have had their streaks of not good teams (especially the Cubs).   But both have a history of choking away or sabotaging their own fortune.   So, maybe this is the Blues year.   But at 0/100+ (in the Cubs case) and 0/50 (Blues) I'll comfortably bet against both until proven otherwise because the odds are clearly in my favor.

 

So, I bet the field against the Blues.

 

That said, I picked the Blues against the Wild.  I thought that was an easy pick.   Mind you, I wouldn't have guessed the Wild would make it this easy (it's not just the Wild; the Blues are playing really well and deserve this).  But I didn't like the way the Wild were playing and the Blues came in playing well.

 

So, that's the difference this year.   Hockeywise--and in a world that doesn't involve history--there's no reason to pick against St. Louis especially in the west.     And honestly, this year feels a little different.  Rather than doing something stupid at the trade deadline that screwed up chemistry, etc., causing the Blues to stumble down the stretch and implode in the playoffs, they have been playing their best hockey coming in.   So this may actually be the year they do something.   They look good.

 

But I'll bet against them until proven otherwise.   Daddy's gotta pay the bills.

[Buffalo Rick]

15 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

First of all, my browser crashed during my first attempt at this, so any "tone" is directed there, not at you.

 

Track record.   I'll bet against them and be confident in that bet until proven otherwise. 

 

We go through this every single season.  I tell you they're doomed, you tell me I'm all wet, they shoot themselves in the foot, shake hands and go golfing, you don't acknowledge how easy a prediction this was all along, rinse, repeat the next season.

 

I think this is the 5th consecutive season of this.

 

You mention the Cubs.   That's actually not a ridiculous comparison.   Yes, I would bet against the Cubs until proven wrong.  They finally won.  So maybe that's changed.   And maybe this is the Blues' year.  Hell, the CUBS won, we elected a mutant carrot with no experience nor qualification to be president, and Bruce Jenner is still a guy.  Welcome to bizarre world where the impossible is suddenly probable.

 

The Cubs are a great comparison because in 50 years the Blues have won exactly nothing.   But like the Cubs, it wasn't just bad luck or lousy clubs.  Yeah, both have had their streaks of not good teams (especially the Cubs).   But both have a history of choking away or sabotaging their own fortune.   So, maybe this is the Blues year.   But at 0/100+ (in the Cubs case) and 0/50 (Blues) I'll comfortably bet against both until proven otherwise because the odds are clearly in my favor.

 

So, I bet the field against the Blues.

 

That said, I picked the Blues against the Wild.  I thought that was an easy pick.   Mind you, I wouldn't have guessed the Wild would make it this easy (it's not just the Wild; the Blues are playing really well and deserve this).  But I didn't like the way the Wild were playing and the Blues came in playing well.

 

So, that's the difference this year.   Hockeywise--and in a world that doesn't involve history--there's no reason to pick against St. Louis especially in the west.     And honestly, this year feels a little different.  Rather than doing something stupid at the trade deadline that screwed up chemistry, etc., causing the Blues to stumble down the stretch and implode in the playoffs, they have been playing their best hockey coming in.   So this may actually be the year they do something.   They look good.

 

But I'll bet against them until proven otherwise.   Daddy's gotta pay the bills.

Well we certainly DO agree on polotics.  I cant stand Trump.  The Blues have been to the dance many more times than the Cubs.  Have been consistently better than the Cubs.  And the chips are all falling into place.  Chicago is toast.  I do not see anyone left in the West beating them.  Minnesota to me was the other best team in the West.  To me this is the West final.  Are you going to make an argument for Nashville?  Go ahead.  As for the East, it will likely come down to Washington and Pittsburgh.  i am not sure if Pittsburgh would play Montreal or Ottawa/Boston if it unfolds that way? But I tell you, as much as I believe Montreal has no shot, I do believe they are Pittsburgh's worst nightmare.  They can keep  the puck out and stop their barrrage with their D and they can get them on odd man breaks off Price's goaltending.  Upset potential and that would help Washington get there.  I believe they will and will find Teresenko and company waiting for them, and the Blues will finally hoist the Cup

[pilldoc]

18 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

i am not sure if Pittsburgh would play Montreal or Ottawa/Boston if it unfolds that way?

 

the way the "new" NHL playoff system works... The Pens will face the Caps once the Caps put away a very pesky Leaf team. (assuming the Pens don't implode)

 

The winner of Habs / Rangers gets the winner of the Sens / Bruins

 

Here is the full bracket for your convenience.

 

https://www.landof10.com/big-ten/2017-nhl-playoffs-scores-live-updates-results-schedule-monday-games

 

[Buffalo Rick]

15 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

 

the way the "new" NHL playoff system works... The Pens will face the Caps once the Caps put away a very pesky Leaf team. (assuming the Pens don't implode)

 

The winner of Habs / Rangers gets the winner of the Sens / Bruins

 

Here is the full bracket for your convenience.

 

https://www.landof10.com/big-ten/2017-nhl-playoffs-scores-live-updates-results-schedule-monday-games

 

I find this quite unfair.  They should have left the old system in place where the highest seed plays the lowest seed.  It only makes sense.  So Washington or Pittsburgh will go home while one of those other lesser teams will move on.  Not fair.  I think they did it for travel and financial reasons?

[B21]

4 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

I find this quite unfair.  They should have left the old system in place where the highest seed plays the lowest seed.  It only makes sense.  So Washington or Pittsburgh will go home while one of those other lesser teams will move on.  Not fair.  I think they did it for travel and financial reasons?

 

Clearly the league has it in for the Penguins. Rumor has it they wanted Pens/Blackhawks in the opening round but thought that would have been to "obvious". 

[ruxpin]

36 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

 And the chips are all falling into place.  Chicago is toast.  I do not see anyone left in the West beating them

 

This seems like this is the way it's going to go.   It seems like if the Blues are ever going to do it, this would be the year, right?   Of the west, St. Louis seems like it should be the best team with the Wild and the Hawks out of it.

 

Nashville seems like it has its mojo with the way it's played the Hawks.  Yet, I'm suspicious of Nashville.  First, I don't think the Hawks are playing particularly well.  In fact, by Hawks' standards, I don't think they can play worse.   Is that Nashville causing that?  Maybe some of it, but I think it's largely Chicago playing poorly.  And you can't expect Rinne to shut people out every night. On paper, and by recent trend, I like St. Louis against Nashville.   I like them against the Ducks, too.   My concern for St. Louis in the west is the winner of Edmonton/San Jose.   Again, I like the way the Blues are playing and it should mean good things.   I'm still waiting for history to rear its ugly head.  

 

Washington is the same way (again, I don't hate St. Louis.  I do hate Washington).   A Caps/Blues final would be interesting.  Given the way both teams historically have imploded, you have to think such a matchup could only mean the arena blows up.

 

Yeah, if the Blues are going to do it, I think this is the year it will happen.   I'm still betting against just because I would never bet money that this is the time Lucy doesn't pull the football from Charlie Brown.

 

[ruxpin]

9 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

I find this quite unfair.  They should have left the old system in place where the highest seed plays the lowest seed.  It only makes sense.  So Washington or Pittsburgh will go home while one of those other lesser teams will move on.  Not fair.  I think they did it for travel and financial reasons?

 

I could argue this one either way.   But this year, anyway, it seems like the really heavyweight matchups are happening early while lesser teams (Atlantic 2 vs. 3) are able to sneak through against lesser talent.

[B21]

1 minute ago, ruxpin said:

 

This seems like this is the way it's going to go.   It seems like if the Blues are ever going to do it, this would be the year, right?   Of the west, St. Louis seems like it should be the best team with the Wild and the Hawks out of it.

 

Nashville seems like it has its mojo with the way it's played the Hawks.  Yet, I'm suspicious of Nashville.  First, I don't think the Hawks are playing particularly well.  In fact, by Hawks' standards, I don't think they can play worse.   Is that Nashville causing that?  Maybe some of it, but I think it's largely Chicago playing poorly.  And you can't expect Rinne to shut people out every night. On paper, and by recent trend, I like St. Louis against Nashville.   I like them against the Ducks, too.   My concern for St. Louis in the west is the winner of Edmonton/San Jose.   Again, I like the way the Blues are playing and it should mean good things.   I'm still waiting for history to rear its ugly head.  

 

Washington is the same way (again, I don't hate St. Louis.  I do hate Washington).   A Caps/Blues final would be interesting.  Given the way both teams historically have imploded, you have to think such a matchup could only mean the arena blows up.

 

Yeah, if the Blues are going to do it, I think this is the year it will happen.   I'm still betting against just because I would never bet money that this is the time Lucy doesn't pull the football from Charlie Brown.

 

 

Until proven otherwise, betting on the Blues is like betting on the Washington Generals. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing them win it all.  I just wouldn't bet on it. 

[ruxpin]

Just now, B21 said:

 

Until proven otherwise, betting on the Blues is like betting on the Washington Generals. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing them win it all.  I just wouldn't bet on it. 

Exactly.  I mean, the comparison to the Generals is a little unfortunate, but I agree in principle.

[Buffalo Rick]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

This seems like this is the way it's going to go.   It seems like if the Blues are ever going to do it, this would be the year, right?   Of the west, St. Louis seems like it should be the best team with the Wild and the Hawks out of it.

 

Nashville seems like it has its mojo with the way it's played the Hawks.  Yet, I'm suspicious of Nashville.  First, I don't think the Hawks are playing particularly well.  In fact, by Hawks' standards, I don't think they can play worse.   Is that Nashville causing that?  Maybe some of it, but I think it's largely Chicago playing poorly.  And you can't expect Rinne to shut people out every night. On paper, and by recent trend, I like St. Louis against Nashville.   I like them against the Ducks, too.   My concern for St. Louis in the west is the winner of Edmonton/San Jose.   Again, I like the way the Blues are playing and it should mean good things.   I'm still waiting for history to rear its ugly head.  

 

Washington is the same way (again, I don't hate St. Louis.  I do hate Washington).   A Caps/Blues final would be interesting.  Given the way both teams historically have imploded, you have to think such a matchup could only mean the arena blows up.

 

Yeah, if the Blues are going to do it, I think this is the year it will happen.   I'm still betting against just because I would never bet money that this is the time Lucy doesn't pull the football from Charlie Brown.

 

That is my pick and my bracket and has been my pick since day one.  Blues over Washington for the Cup.  If it is the Pens instead, so be it.  The Blues can play defense and have Jake Allen who is on fire. They have Teresenko, Steen and Pietrangelo just to mention a few.  Berglund is one of the most underated guys in the game.   They have all the weapons to get this done and the team I feared the most trails 3-0

[Buffalo Rick]

40 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

Until proven otherwise, betting on the Blues is like betting on the Washington Generals. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing them win it all.  I just wouldn't bet on it. 

Well would you at least concede the fact they are the team to beat in the West?  I did bet on it and before the season started.  Comparisons to the Cubs and well lets talk about the Red Sox while we are at it.  The ended it and did it in startling fashion by being the only team ever in baseball to come back from 3-0.  I know I loved it. Basketball is the only sport its never happened in.  Almost a few times, teams came back to tie it 3-3 and lost game 7.  I think the Pistons were the last?  Nashvile does not match up to St Louis.  Nobody left does.  Only the Wild.  I bet 3 future Cup finals on 5 dimes and the Blues to win the Cup in Vegas.  I have Washington vs ST Louis and Minnesota.  And Columbus vs St Louis.  Wash vs St Louis the only one alive.  I do have the Blues just to win the West also

[Buffalo Rick]

49 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

Until proven otherwise, betting on the Blues is like betting on the Washington Generals. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing them win it all.  I just wouldn't bet on it. 

Now you are getting crazy comparing them to the Generals. I mean, come on.  Look at the lineup they have .  Jake Allen is on fire.  Just wait

[B21]

32 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Now you are getting crazy comparing them to the Generals. I mean, come on.  Look at the lineup they have .  Jake Allen is on fire.  Just wait

 

When it comes to the playoffs? Sure - why not. The never win. Like the Generals.

[B21]

38 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Well would you at least concede the fact they are the team to beat in the West?  I did bet on it and before the season started.  Comparisons to the Cubs and well lets talk about the Red Sox while we are at it.  The ended it and did it in startling fashion by being the only team ever in baseball to come back from 3-0.  I know I loved it. Basketball is the only sport its never happened in.  Almost a few times, teams came back to tie it 3-3 and lost game 7.  I think the Pistons were the last?  Nashvile does not match up to St Louis.  Nobody left does.  Only the Wild.  I bet 3 future Cup finals on 5 dimes and the Blues to win the Cup in Vegas.  I have Washington vs ST Louis and Minnesota.  And Columbus vs St Louis.  Wash vs St Louis the only one alive.  I do have the Blues just to win the West also

 

They have been the team to beat before though. All those years they made the playoffs and they haven't seen a Stanley Cup Final since 1969-70.  Only 3 Conference Finals by my count. For whatever reason they seem to be a tad bit...snakebitten? Until proven otherwise...

 

At the end of the day, you may be right and "win the bet" that year they do make it to the SCF.  I "won the bet" the previous however many years they didn't.

[Buffalo Rick]

25 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

When it comes to the playoffs? Sure - why not. The never win. Like the Generals.

Unfair.  You perhaps do not know of the St Louis teams of the 60s and 70s.  Being a Flyer or Sabres fan we know how hard it is to win and how many teams there are now making it more difficult.  1975 you guys won.  And yes you beat us, an expansion team at the time, an expansion team that outplayed you totally but you had one Bernie Parent to save the day. That is the facts.  1975 does not exactly bring great joy does it.?  No more than 1983 for my Orioles.  Not when greedy teams dominate free agency with money like the Yankees.  Sports is more money than loyalty sadly.   

[Buffalo Rick]

24 minutes ago, B21 said:

 

They have been the team to beat before though. All those years they made the playoffs and they haven't seen a Stanley Cup Final since 1969-70.  Only 3 Conference Finals by my count. For whatever reason they seem to be a tad bit...snakebitten? Until proven otherwise...

 

At the end of the day, you may be right and "win the bet" that year they do make it to the SCF.  I "won the bet" the previous however many years they didn't.

I love their chances right now.  And Teresenko has not yet begun to fight

[B21]

22 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

1975 you guys won.

 

I'm assuming you mean the Steelers? 

 

24 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

1975 does not exactly bring great joy does it.?

 

Sure it does. I was born. Steelers won the Super Bowl. I remember it well. 

 

25 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

No more than 1983 for my Orioles.

 

As a Pirates fan I really only like to remind Orioles fans about 1971 and 1979. 

[Buffalo Rick]

1 hour ago, B21 said:

 

I'm assuming you mean the Steelers? 

 

 

Sure it does. I was born. Steelers won the Super Bowl. I remember it well. 

 

 

As a Pirates fan I really only like to remind Orioles fans about 1971 and 1979. 

I failed to look at your logo and assumed you were a Flyer fan like 99% of the board.  You had best enjoy those World Series in those days because they are the last Pittsburgh will ever ever see.  Baltimore is far better than Pittsburgh now.  We  have won a few series of our own, beating the big red machine, Dodgers and Phillies. Baltimore is a very proud franchise and guys like Brooks Robinson and the late Dave McNally and Jim Palmer and Cal Ripken are just a few names.  The Pirates sucked out and I still think we were complacent with a 3-1 lead and took them lightly. The Pirates have sucked for years now and still suck.  There are your Washington Generals

 

[pilldoc]

41 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

We  have won a few series of our own, beating the big red machine, Dodgers and Phillies.

 

You do realize, that the Phillies are hardly a worthy World Series team..  The got swept in 1950 by the Yankees, then they don't sniff another World Series until 1980 when they beat the Royals in 6.  Yup they lost in 1983 to the O's (that is almost 35 years ago...I was still in Junior High School), then the Phillies don't make it again until 10 years later when they lose to the Blue Jays in 1993.  Then they don't make it again until they beat the Rays in 2008 and lose again to the Yankees in 2009.

 

So a franchise who has the most losses in MLB history has exactly 2 World Series trophy's (1980 and 2008).  It's not like the O's beat a perennial World Series Team like the Dodgers / Cardinals / Braves / Giants......

 

I will give you that the O's did beat a very good Dodgers team...but that was back in 1966.  Over 50 years ago.

There Reds were in 1970 which was the start of the Big Red Machine....

 

All I'm trying to say is...don't feel to proud beating the Phillies in 83.  The Phillies for most of their history have been pretty bad.

 

 

[pilldoc]

In the sortable table below, teams are ordered first by number of appearances, then by number of wins, and finally by year of first appearance. In the "Season(s)" column, bold years indicate winning World Series appearances.

 

(7)	Pittsburgh Pirates	5	-2		1903, 1909, 1925, 1927, 1960, 1971, 1979
(7)	Baltimore Orioles (St. Louis Browns)	3	-4		1944, 1966, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1979, 1983
(7)	Philadelphia Phillies	2	-5		1915, 1950, 1980, 1983, 1993, 2008, 2009

[B21]

1 hour ago, Hockey Junkie said:

I failed to look at your logo and assumed you were a Flyer fan like 99% of the board.  You had best enjoy those World Series in those days because they are the last Pittsburgh will ever ever see.  Baltimore is far better than Pittsburgh now.  We  have won a few series of our own, beating the big red machine, Dodgers and Phillies. Baltimore is a very proud franchise and guys like Brooks Robinson and the late Dave McNally and Jim Palmer and Cal Ripken are just a few names.  The Pirates sucked out and I still think we were complacent with a 3-1 lead and took them lightly. The Pirates have sucked for years now and still suck.  There are your Washington Generals

 

 

Good God are you defensive. 

 

You do realize that the Pirates' and O's post season histories practically mirror each other, right? Each team has 3 appearances in the last 6 years then a short run in the 1990's preceded by lots of success in the 1970's and early 1980's.

 

Pirates: Founded 1882. 17 post-season appearances. 9 pennants. 5 World Series wins.

Orioles: Founded 1901. 14 post-season appearances. 7 pennants. 3 World Series wins.

 

Right now the biggest difference between the two clubs is that the Pirates were smart enough to get rid of Pedro Alvarez while the Orioles signed him.  Oh yeah - 4 years and $50 million for Ubaldo Jiminez??? #winning  

 

Speaking of proud...Honus Wagner. Willie Stargell. Roberto Clemente.