Blues improved by 11 points from last season; some players elevated their play, some failed greatly; coaching change improved team’s outlook
Matt Krohn-USA TODAY Sports
ST. LOUIS — Remember these words from a season ago when the St. Louis Blues sustained a major dip in point-production from one season to the next:
How the mighty have fallen, and the Blues, who recently completed the 2022-23 season at 37-38-7, a 28-point fall from 109 points to 81, out of the playoffs and left talking about how the culture needs to get back to what it was after feeling like it slipped.
Yeah, there were some players that spoke publicly that didn’t like not only the fall from grace of being among the playoff teams in the Western Conference, but also from the culture that had failed them. There was major work that needed to be done.
The objective from management was simple: they were equipping themselves for a retool all the while trying to remain relevant, ingratiating their prospects and next generation of players in with the current veterans.
It worked to a extent. They improved from 81 points last season to 43-33-6, good for 92 points this season and being eliminated from Stanley Cup playoff contention after Game No. 80.
The culture in the room was improved, under the leadership of new captain Brayden Schenn and the leadership group, a number of players improved their play from a season ago and the Blues, who fell to the bottom third of the league a season ago, trudged their way back into the middle of the pack, now have to keep climbing that hill they fell down last year.
So with the 2023-24 season now in the books, I’ll offer my grades for this season’s Blues, including Doug Armstrong and Drew Bannister (thanks to hockey-reference.com for the numbers), the coaching staff and management (and I won’t delve too deep into these capsules!):
Forwards:
Robert Thomas — OK, this finally became Thomas’ chance to be THE GUY. With the trade of Ryan O’Reilly and the sides not coming together on bringing the veteran back last summer, Thomas was the clear-cut No. 1 center on this team and he thrived by putting up career-highs in goals (26), assists (60) and points (86) in 82 games, becoming the first Blue since Craig Janney (68) to put up 60 or more assists in a season when Janney did it in 1992-93; he also had the most points by a Blue since Pavol Demitra had 93 in 2002-03. He had one of the best Corsi percentages (50.7) among forwards and considering he was facing teams’ top-flight players on a nightly basis, the fact he was over 50 percent on a team that was not good 5-on-5 says a lot; his Fenwick-for (1,011) was tops among the forwards. His ability and willingness to defend the top players, and do it well, was promising, while playing the most minutes per game of his career (20:57) and winning his draws (53.1 percent); his 2.6 DPS (defensive point shares) was tops on the team. Thomas finally broke out and scored the kind of goals we all saw the potential of earlier in his career by shooting it plenty more, but I still think he can shoot more pucks. He did have a stretch of games in late February-early March when he was not putting up the production, but playing through illness had something to do with a good stretch of those games. It’s hard to argue impact he had, no matter who the linemates were, Thomas was able to produce for most of the season. It was a good one to build off of, and the potential to be the first Blue since Brendan Shananan to put up 100 or more points is on the horizon.
My grade: A
Jordan Kyrou — OK, let me first preface Kyrou by saying that for him to be a better player, Kyrou had to improve his overall game in this space last season. A lot of that was meant on the defensive side. It most definitely got better. Watching him play this season, there was much more of a mindset of playing the other side of the puck. And when he did, the results were quite positive. But in doing that, there were stretches of his most dangerous side (his offensive prowess) that dipped — until late in the season. He finished with 19 points (11 goals, eight assists) in the final 16 games to give him 31 goals for the season, tops on the team, and 67 points, which was second to Thomas, in 82 games. His plus-minus went from a team worst minus-38 a year ago to minus-12, much better; not great but a lot better, while averaging a career high 18:19 time on ice per game. By his own admission, Kyrou lacked confidence at times, not good. He’s going to be in positions to shoot pucks quite often, and I thought for whatever reason either he was hesitant or simply missed nets too often. His Corsi-for percentage (52.3) was second on the team, and the fact he had the best Fenwick percentage (52.3) means the Blues did have the puck more often when he was on the ice. That’s good. That’s what you need from your best players. I still felt like at times he turned pucks over in the neutral zone more often that one wants to see, and that was a result of trying to make an individual play, but that will continue to grow over in time; he had more giveaways (53) than takeaways (51). But the point production has gone down in each of the past two seasons since totaling a career-high 75 two seasons ago. Kyrou is hitting the peak of his career, and those numbers need to be reaching into the 80s, not dipping into the 60s. I was harder on him last season, and rightfully so. The year this year got better. That trajectory needs to start climbing again. He’s paid to produce, first and foremost, but the willingness to at least attempt to be more of a 200-foot player is encouraging.
My grade: B
Pavel Buchnevich — I’ve spoken glowingly about Buchnevich in his first two seasons with the Blues. Scores, contributes offensively, mindful defensively, plays hard, aggressive, physical when needed, willingness to move to the center position (again). But I saw inconsistent play this season, and there were times following media sessions that the 29-year-old would lament his play. He did finish with 27 goals, which was tied for second on the team with Jake Neighbours but his points (63) dipped for the second straight year after putting up a career-high 76 in his first year with the Blues in 2022-23. Well, his 52.0 Fenwick-for percentage meant the Blues did have the puck more often than the opposition, and it was second on the team behind Kyrou, and Buchnevich had the highest Corsi-for percentage on the team at 52.8 percent. Those are solid numbers. But I can seem to recall on a number of occasions though the uncharacteristic amount of times Buchnevich would turn pucks over, and in big moments. He’s his biggest critic and for the player of his caliber, it just seemed to out of touch. Was he putting pressure on himself with trade talk swirling around him for log swaths of the season? Probably. But it didn’t deter him from doing what was necessary to play the game, whether it be killing penalties, making something happen on the power play, 5-on-5, whatever. Unfortunately, the special teams play ad 5-on-5 wasn’t enough to lift his grade this year. Doug Armstrong likes Pavel Buchnevich. The organization likes Pavel Buchnevich. He’s going into the last year of his contract. Does he get, or deserve, an extension? Time will tell.
My grade: B
Brayden Schenn — I’ll start this one off by saying the captaincy belonged to him. Period. This guy bleeds blue, a heart and soul player, leader by example, all of the above. You name it, he’s got it. So the Blues got this one right. But perhaps, especially in the first half of the year, the added role of being the leader affected Schenn’s play, particularly offensively. The good news is he finished with a bang, 15 points (seven goals, eight assists) in the final 16 games to finish with his eighth 20-goal season in the NHL. By his own admission, he felt he played looser towards the end of the season, when the games mattered most. But unfortunately for Schenn, he went through his two longest goal droughts of his career, first 16 games, then another one at 18, so think about it, that’s nearly half of a season without scoring but still to finish with 20 goals is pretty darn good. Unfortunately, Schenn’s Corsi percentage (45.8) and Fenwick percentage (46.5) were each below the 50 percentile number, so when he was on the ice, the Blues were chasing the puck more so than possessing it. I’ve stated before I don’t take too much into a plus-minus because that is such a flawed stat, but you have to take notice he was a minus-22 and now minus-49 the past two seasons; his ice time per game (17:46) was his lowest 2015-16; he did shoot the puck much more (170), his highest number since his first season with the Blues in 2017-18 and his face-off percentage rose nearly three percent (49.3) from last season but his points (46) was the lowest in a non-COVID season since 2013-14. I liked the finish at the end, and Schenn can always be counted on as someone the coaching staff can rely on at both ends of the ice, and he continues to be more than willing to drop the gloves when needed. There was good. There was not-so-good. The grade is reflective. I continue to like the intangibles, including playing a second straight full 82-game season and having 169 hits. The offense, as a top six forward, had to be better.
My grade: C+
Brandon Saad — Any time I think of this player, I think of the most below-the-radar, underrated skater on the ice, year in, year out. But you want to talk about streaky, Saad is it. When he was on, he was really on. When he was cold, he was ice cold. But he finished with 26 goals, his most since scoring 31 with the Columbus Blue Jackets in 2015-16, and when he did score, did he score some big-time goals or what? Fourteen of his goals either gave the Blues the lead (nine) or tied the game (five). Those are big-time, clutch goals. He did get off the a slow start this season, playing up and down the lineup, with just three goals in the first 21 games, so the rest of the season, he did score 23 in 61 games, which is a little better than once every three games. Not too bad. Saad’s Corsi percentage (43.9) wasn’t good, neither was his Fenwick percentage (44.8), but he never seemed like the puck possession kind of player to me. But when he got it, there was always a very deceptive speed factor in his game. When he got it, he was gone, and the puck was off his stick fast. Saad’s points (42) were a slight uptick over last season (37) but the assists (16) were down. He shot the puck more (144) and scored seven game-winning goals, but the minutes per game (15:30) dropped by over a minute from last season. Saad has been a bang-for-your-buck kind of player since the Blues signed him. I thought his season was good. If they can continue this kind of production for the two years at $4.5 million AAV, the Blues will be quite happy.
My grade: B+
Jake Neighbours — Well, who saw this one coming? If you did, go get that lottery ticket, because you may just hit the jackpot. First full season from Neighbours and 27 goals? Are you kidding me? Well, for those that watched his game evolve this season, from starting on the fourth line to being a first-line winger, will understand where I’m coming from. Playing in 77 games this season (unfortunate not to play in all 82 due to a late-season head injury stemming from a check against San Jose April 6), Neighbours developed his craft into a net front presence. You won’t see his goals on the highlight reels or on anyone’s Top 10 list, and that’s OK with him, because the Blues haven’t had this kind of player since David Backes. Neighbours had just 10 points (six goals) in 43 games last season getting his first extended taste of the NHL. He scored eight power-play goals this season, four game-winners, nearly tripled his shot output (145) and averaged 15:42 of ice time. For those that live and die by the plus-minus, should we hold Neighbours for having a minus-16? I’m not. He didn’t have good puck possession numbers either (45.1 Corsi-for, 45.4 Fenwick-for) but he’s not the puck possession type of player. This guy is as blue-collared as blue collar can get. Skates hard, checks, grinds, kills penalties, responsible on the other side of the puck. He is the epitome of what the Blues are trying to do by developing young prospects while retooling the roster. There’s something to build on here. I would like to see Neighbours in on more points (38), so the assists need an uptick, which means he could get involved a touch more, but for the first full year, what’s there to complain about? Nothing.
My grade: A
Kevin Hayes — When the Blues made this acquisition at the NHL Draft last year, I thought it would work out to be an adequate move. When O’Reilly signed with Nashville, the Blues were in need of a center, and Hayes was originally supposed to be part of a larger scale trade with the Philadelphia Flyers but was picked up for a sixth-round pick and 50 percent salary retained; not too shabby. Hayes is a good guy, and on a personal level, you have to feel bad for him after losing his brother Jimmy. I’ve heard all the right things about him being a good locker room guy, teammates love him and a good voice leading the way. As for the production, he went from 18 goals, 36 assists last season to 13 goals, 16 assists in 79 games this season. Hayes’ top attribute is puck possession and holding onto it, but he was just 46.2 Corsi-for percentage, 45.7 Fenwick-for percentage; that’s not good enough for a puck possession guy. But what really stood out, or lack thereof, was the limited amount of skating speed. Hayes does not have any of it. His 14:28 ice time was his lowest since the second year of his career with the New York Rangers in 2015-16, but I will give Hayes his dues for being effective on the dot. He won a career-high 57.0 percent of his face-offs this season, which was among the league leaders. But other than that, even at a $3.571 million cap hit for two more seasons, this trade did not give the Blues the bang for their buck. Not even close. If not for the leadership abilities and face-off effectiveness, this grade would have been lower. If I can find a taker, even if the Blues have to eat salary from the half-eaten salary already, to take Hayes off their hands this summer, I’d do it if I’m the Blues.
My grade: D-
Kasperi Kapanen — When the Blues got Kapanen off waivers from the Pittsburgh Penguins late last season and he put up 14 points, including eight goals, in just 23 games, I felt maybe they got someone who could be a wild card sort of player that just needed a change of scenery. Yikes, was I wrong (Part 1; see below for Part 2). I’m not going to play the stats numbers game with Kapanen here. He was right there with Schenn as far as the possession numbers were concerned, since the two played together a lot this season. Did anyone see just six goals and 22 points in 73 games? No? Well me neither. Look, Kapanen can skate, he defends well, blocks shots, he actually has a really good shot (when he uses it, and/or hits the net) but producing was a huge issue this season. Even by his own admission, Kapanen said it may have been his worst season of his NHL career. I like the guy and think there’s some untapped talent there. Effort was never an issue. Execution was. The Blues needed more, lots more. He’s a UFA and will likely be seeking employment elsewhere, and not nearly at the $3.2 million AAV he was making.
My grade: D-
Alexey Toropchenko — Hustle, grit, relentless, tenacious. I’m someone who covers the team, so I will only speak in a bon-biased voice, but if I were a fan, watching his effort would be the price of admission alone. No matter the situation, no matter the score, this guy’s motor is always on high octane, in all three zones. He topped his 10-goal output last season with 14 this season in 82 games and finished with 21 points. Not bad for a predominantly fourth-line winger. Again, I hate the advanced stats, because those that look at them without knowing the player would think Toropchenko is terrible because his Corsi-for (40.0 percent) and Fenwick-for (40.9 percent) were not good. But his game is not predicated on puck possession. Does he chase the puck a lot more? Sure. But his pursuit and ability to forecheck and win pucks back quickly and efficiently are qualities that are strong. Toropchenko will also hit, 165 of them, which is third on the team. Coaches rewarded Toropchenko by upping his ice time per game to a career-high 12:31, played him in a top-six role at times for his hard work and dedication. I’d still like to see him finish off some plays more effectively (although one of my posts on ‘X’ got me in trouble when I questioned Toropchenko’s hands right before he scored a hands-like highlight-reel goal in Montreal). I’d like to see him in a more of a net front presence role. He tended to play outside the dots a little too much, but again, that will come with coaching and opportunity. This kid gets it (again). He had himself another well-rounded season.
My grade: A
Oskar Sundqvist — When the Sundqvist signing was announced last summer, and at the league minimum, I thought it was a perfect fit: a player that wanted to come home, needing to prove himself all over again, and a team getting a quality human being, a good veteran leader and someone they knew and trusted and knew what he could bring to the table. And Sundqvist knew his role: be the motor as the fourth-line center, bring energy and passion to the game, pull your linemates into the battle and pop in the occasional offense when called upon. He was doing that and when the trade deadline approached, general manager Doug Armstrong and Sundqvist talked; the veteran was asked if he wanted to go to a contender. He didn’t, got himself an extension to stay home, and then it happened again, another knee injury, another torn ACL ended his season prematurely. It’ll be another grueling off-season of recovery and rehab. But Sundqvist finished with six goals and 21 points in 71 games. His advanced stats of puck possession were not high either (38.8 Corsi-for, 40.0 Fenwick-for), face-off percentage was not good enough (41.9 percent). Underlying numbers weren’t great, but for what the Blues needed to utilize him for, I thought he handled himself adequately. The real test now comes trying to come back from another devastating knee injury.
My grade: B
Nathan Walker — Another player in line with Toropchenko: relentless, gritty, tenacious, willing to play in whatever role given, whether on the wing or at center, move up in the lineup but mostly play a depth, fourth-line role, Walker was good at it. He put up a career-high 13 points (seven goals, six assists) in 45 games after being called up from Springfield. He would never go back down. Walker is another well-liked player in the locker room, someone who stands up for himself and his teammates all packed into his compact 5-foot-9, 187-pound frame. Believe it or not, Walker’s possession numbers (43.9 Corsi-for, 44.2 Fenwick-for) were better than most of the other bottom forwards; not great, but better. But given that he only averaged 10:48 of ice time, what more could you expect? Walker wasn’t one of those players that vastly improved your chances for winning but he also wasn’t one that hurt the team either. Was he great? No. Was he poor? No. Just based off his tenacity and determination to play the 200-foot game made him better than an average player.
My grade: B
Sammy Blais — Another player I had high hopes for here. Blais got himself a new lease on his career when he was traded back to the Blues that sent Vladimir Tarasenko to the New York Rangers near the trade deadline, and all he did was erupt for 20 points (nine goals, 11 assists) in 31 games after just five assists with the Rangers in 40 games. Blais earned himself a new one-year, $1 million contract and the Blues had high hopes that he could revive his career after also tearing up his knee in 2021. The good news out of the 53 games Blais played in this season is he led the team with 194 hits. But that’s it. He had one goal and six assists, and it seemed like the only time you heard his name or saw his number was when he was making a hit, or taking an ill-advised penalty (31 penalty minutes). He also didn’t drive offensive possession (43.6 Corsi-for, 41.7 Fenwick-for). I had a hard time even knowing when he was on the ice most nights, and Blais was a frequent healthy scratch throughout the season. I don’t know what happened to his game, but it got lost somewhere. Other than the hits, it just wasn’t there whatsoever. Highly disappointing. He’s an unrestricted free agent and I don’t see the Blues bringing him back.
My grade: F
Nikita Alexandrov — I can remember at the end of training camp last season when Alexandrov was the talk — and surprise — among those that were trying to crash the door in to trying to make the NHL club out of training camp. Craig Berube spoke so glowingly of Alexandrov that there finally might be something there of the 2019 second-round pick. Well, he spent mostly the entire season in St. Louis, played in 23 games and produced two assists and was a minus-4. Maybe I’m in the minority — I don’t know — but I just don’t see it. There’s just nothing there that tells me this player can be an effective NHLer. He doesn’t play physical (29), he doesn’t shoot the puck (15) and he can’t win face-offs (40.7 percent). As a center iceman, that’s one quality that needs to be near the 50 percentile to be effective. This felt like an entirely lost year of development for Alexandrov, who is only 23 and will be a restricted free agent. Again, I may be in the minority, but I’d cut the cord on this one. I just don’t see it.
My grade: F
Zack Bolduc — Now as far as Bolduc is concerned, I see it. I see a player that’s willing to do what it takes to succeed at this level, and in the 25 games (five goals, four assists) Bolduc played in this season, he was a fast-riser. His shot is precise and will get better. Impressive that he’s already leaning on utilizing that tool wisely. But what impressed me most about Bolduc is something Berube talked about: Bolduc needing more pace in his game and being more responsible defensively. I think the kid took all those constructive criticisms to heart and fulfilled those obligations, at least in the early going of his NHL career to heart. Bolduc got to play on the top line with Robert Thomas and wasn’t awestruck by the moment. It’s a small sample size, but I’d like to seen Bolduc have a better possession rate (43.1 Corsi-for, 44.4 Fenwick-for) for someone who has really good skating ability. That will come with time. There’s plenty of upside here. I like the player. I thought he showed himself well in his little more than quarter of a season.
My grade: A-
Jakub Vrana — Simply put: an unmitigated disaster (here is Part 2). When Vrana was traded here, from the Detroit Red Wings, and scored 10 goals in 20 games last season, I saw speed, I saw a terrific shot, I saw someone hitting the prime of their life that could also benefit from a change of scenery and deliver. I saw a player who, int he right situation and right circumstances, could score 30-plus goals this season. Whoops. He played in 21 games, had two goals, seven assists, was a minus-7 and was banished to Springfield. I remember a game in Chicago, where it seemed like the beginning of the end for Berube, when Vrana was responsible for two giveaways and lapses in judgment, lacking effort on both plays. The Blues were down 2-0 just in a snap, and it also sort of signified the end for him here. Again, for whatever reason, he got lost this season. He was put on waivers after the Blackhawks game, went to Springfield, came up, played two more games, was a minus-3 in a loss to Florida and was sent down for good again. There were no advanced stats that could justify keeping him here. The Blues got Vrana on the cheap ($2.625 million AAV), they gave it a shot and it was a major bust. He’s a UFA, move on.
My grade: F
Forwards Zach Dean, Adam Gaudette, Mackenzie MacEachern and Hugh McGing all receive incomplete grades.
Defensemen:
Torey Krug — Krug seems to be a lightning rod for Blues fans. Some like him, a lot. Some hate him with a passion (I have no clue why), and some — not many — are just impartial. I get tired of hearing how this is the player the Blues got to “replace” Alex Pietrangelo. For the last time, no, it isn’t. They’re two different players that play two different styles of game. And Krug’s 2023-24 season, or the summer prior to it, got off to a rocky start when the Blues asked him and his camp to waive a no-trade clause to Philadelphia. He refused. He wanted to stay in St. Louis and make things right after last season. I give the veteran credit for that. It was his right and he chose to act on not invoking the NTC. In 77 games, a relatively healthy season, he finished tops among the d-men with 39 points but just four goals. I get a lot of scoffs about Krug’s play on social media, but to be honest, I didn’t think he was bad. I actually thought his season was decent. Not great but decent. And again, I get it: well, he was a minus-31, rah, rah, rah, rah! Again, stop it. You’re on the ice in sixth-attacker situations that contribute to this. For someone that’s 5-9, 194, Krug played with lots of bite in his game. He won’t shy away from contact, I thought his outlet passes for the most part were crisp that contributed to lots of odd-man rushes, but there were also a number of puck mistakes that would up in the back of the net, and for the bullies that say he needs to clear his crease better. Trying to move 6-5, 220-230 bodies isn’t the easiest thing for a 5-9 guy. A guy that quarterbacked the power play needed more production from him there, that’s for sure; he averaged 21:57 ice time, the most since his first season in St. Louis. He did shoot the puck plenty (162), the most since 2017-18 with the Boston Bruins, but the puck needs to go in the net more than four times. His puck possession percentage (48.0 Corsi-for, 47.6 Fenwick-for) was second-best among Blues defensemen (Scott Perunovich). I just didn’t see all the doom and gloom that some of you all did. Was it perfect? No. Was it that bad? No.
My grade: C+
Justin Faulk — As good as Faulk was last season, his best in my opinion since he arrived in St. Louis via trade in 2019, I was thinking if he could duplicate or top it. Injuries did hamper things, but something just seemed off with Faulk this season. He’s been so fundamentally sound defensively throughout his career, I saw things this season that were so uncharacteristic. Getting beat at the net front, bad positioning, losing puck battles in the d-zone, things that he’s been so good at. I just didn’t see the same bite in his game as I saw last season, and again, an ankle injury was a contributor of that. The offense drastically fell off (11 goals, 39 assists last season) to just two goals, 28 assists in 60 games this season. Like Krug, a puck-shooting defenseman, Faulk just didn’t contribute on that side of the puck as often as I thought he would. Puck possession was OK (47.2 Corsi-for, 47.0 Fenwick-for) and he did have 104 blocks this season, but the hits (83) were down for a well-built d-man that doesn’t shy away from physicality. Maybe this was just a one-off for Faulk, because I’ve certainly seen much better. The Blues will need, and they’d like for him to recapture his season of last year, because this one was not up to his standards.
My grade: C-
Nick Leddy — Again like Krug, I don’t get all the Leddy hate from this fan base. If anyone made a huge leap from his play a season ago to this one, Leddy fits the bill. I saw a player who fit in well with partner Colton Parayko. I remember last season fans wanted to take that pairing and throw it into a fire pit. I thought they played really well together this season all things considered. Leddy made some really sound passes out of the d-zone this season that I was like, “Wow!” And most of the time, his ability to transport pucks from ‘D’ to ‘O’ smoothly was exceptional. Leddy’s average ice time (22:21) were the most since 2017-18 with the New York Islanders and his plus-14 was the best on the team. As an upper-pair guy, can he do better offensively (three goals, 25 assists)? Sure. I didn’t see some of the glaring mistakes that I saw with him last season when I have Leddy a D. He was second behind Parayko with 127 blocks and his 5.2 DPS and 5.9 points share were tops among all Blues defensemen. I know everyone’s screaming that Leddy’s not a top pairing guy, and he’s more suited as a second-pair guy, but for what the Blues had, I thought he handled himself very well.
My grade: A-
Colton Parayko — I remember all the fair-weathered fans that wanted Parayko gone two years ago, when they didn’t realize the big man (6-6, 228) was playing with a herniated disk in his back. Aren’t you glad the Blues held onto him? Like Leddy, two players that fed off each other well, Parayko was exceptional most nights with his ability to break up plays, defend the top players and limit their production, skate with the puck out of a phone booth and sacrifice the body (218 blocked shots, which led the NHL). Parayko tied his career high in goals (10) and had 26 points in 82 games and was a plus-4 while averaging a career-high 23:51 per game. Offensively, I like how Parayko filters himself into the play, but that’s where I think he can be more effective and contribute more, and on the defensive end, I think he can clear the crease with more regularity, using that big body. There weren’t too many nights coming away thinking Parayko’s game was bad. He was second to Leddy in DPS (4.8) and PS (5.8) while delivering the most hits (113) among defensemen. Parayko is 30, and people were (are) worried about the length of his contract, but I say as long as he stays healthy, the Blues have themselves a good one.
My grade: A
Scott Perunovich — This was a tough one for me, because I like the kid as a person, and I’m sympathetic to the injuries he’s had to overcome, but I’ve got to be as objective as I can on the season Perunovich had. Let’s get the numbers up first: 17 points (all assists) in 54 games, averaging 15:16 ice time. Perunovich, when on, was the best of the puck-possession numbers among the d-men (48.2 percent Corsi-for and 48.7 percent Fenwick-for). When the puck was on his stick, or when he was able to go and retrieve it cleanly, good things usually happened. But two of my biggest flaws with this kid: his unwillingness to shoot the puck and his defensive game (particularly his positioning) had some alarming flaws; he’s got a lot to learn on the defensive part of the game. I had to go back and watch some of the tape on him when in college, and Perunovich scored 20 goals in three years. Not eye-popping but pretty good. And he had 85 assists. The Blues have given Perunovich plenty of leash this season, playing him on the power play, playing him in a top four role, even playing him with Parayko down the stretch. One comment that stuck out to me from Doug Armstrong’s season-ending presser is when he said regarding Perunovich, “Now we know what we have.” I just can’t get that comment out of my head. It almost says to me the Blues know what they have and it isn’t what they thought they’d get. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my gut on this. I just thought Perunovich would deliver much more than he did. He’s a restricted free agent this summer; the Blues made sure of that when he reached his games played quota. Do you sign him or use him as a trade chip? Something to decipher. As for this past season, I was looking for much more.
My grade: D+
Marco Scandella — I’ve come to learn with Scandella at his age and experience: what you see is what you get. He played a full season this year and got into 65 games (two goals, six assists) after hip surgery last season. Scandella only averaged a career-low 12:28 per game this season but he’s not going to give you the flash and dash. He was positionally sound for the most part, was physical when needed and complemented the third pair unit adequately and was an effective penalty killer. Scandella was a plus-2 on the season and is set to be a UFA and we’ve all but likely seen the last of him in St. Louis, his fourth-plus. Have we seen the last of the 34-year-old for good? Maybe. But his last season with the Blues was handled like a pro after being made a healthy scratch a number of times down the stretch so the Blues could evaluate their younger d-men.
My grade: C+
Matthew Kessel — Kessel got a taste of the NHL, albeit a brief one, last season with two games, but when he was called up from Springfield on Dec. 30 to play against Sidney Crosby and the Pittsburgh Penguins when Faulk was injured the previous night against the Colorado Avalanche, it changed the right-handed d-man’s career. Kessel was thrust into the every day life of NHL and not just given glorified limited minutes but he was paired with Krug in a top four role and immediately began to thrive. Kessel played 39 games and had a goal and six assists and was even on the plus-minus, playing 16:47 a night. What impressed me about Kessel’s game is how poised he was with the puck, making simple plays and not being overwhelmed by the speed and physicality of the game. He did make mistakes, which is natural, and some of them were costly, both with the puck and positioning around the net, but he’s just getting his skates on the ground — or the ice — and running. The Blues were so impressed with Kessel’s rapid development that they wasted little time inking him to a two-year, $800,000 AAV one-way contract. For a first-year player, Kessel’s possession numbers were OK (45.7 Corsi-for, 46.3 Fenwick-for), they could be better and with time and reps, likely will. I didn’t see the glaring puck errors that some of the numbers may indicate. Would have liked to see a little more of a shot-blocking mindset (65) and hits (40) but that will also come with time. There’s a lot to like here, and it was a solid start to his NHL career.
My grade: B+
Tyler Tucker — This is another one that’s tough to evaluate simply because of the amount of games played (26) for the second straight season. Tucker had a goal and an assist and was a plus-1 this season, but he’s not judged on goals and assists, he’s judged on defensive play and the way he handles himself. When Tucker is on, he was physically engaged, he separated players from the puck using his size and he effectively broke up plays. I saw those qualities, especially down the stretch when he played in the month of April. Tucker played 12:27, which was down from the 14:38 he averaged a season ago. A lot of that had to do with how much he sat this season, like Alexandrov, and when he did play and wasn’t effective, he got exposed getting beat, especially around the edges. Tucker averaged roughly 2.5 hits per game (64) and blocked 27 shots; those numbers needed to be higher for the way he plays. You like his ability to drop the gloves, which he did this season when called upon. Those are some of his attributes, but we didn’t see them consistently enough, or else he would have seen more games. Tucker has one more year left on his current contract. One would think he has to make the most of it before becoming a RFA.
My grade: C
Defensemen Robert Bortuzzo and Calle Rosen each receive an incomplete grade, but I would like to offer Bortuzzo an honorary ‘A’ simply for being one of the good people to deal with in the locker room since 2015. He was funny, witty when keeping the mood light, informative when needed to be and a willing participant to the media when asked for. One of the good guys to deal with.
Goalies:
Jordan Binnington — Finally, those outside these city walls, and what those that have been watching the Blues on a regular basis, saw this season. And that’s a goalie that played above and beyond his potential. Look I get it, the black and white numbers (28-21-5, 2.84 goals-against average, .913 save percentage) don’t exactly reek Hall of Fame record numbers but considering how lousy the Blues were in their overall special teams and their 5-on-5 play, the fact that they were eve sniffing around the Western Conference wild card race in Game 80 was in large part to Binnington. So much so, that one could make the argument he should have been a Vezina Trophy finalist. Hockey-reference.com had Binnington’s goals-saved above average at 16.6; a number of other stat keepers had him in the top five among qualified goalies. Also, hockey-reference.com had Binnington with 33 quality starts for save percentages above his season save percentage, which is 60 percent. The league average is 53 percent. Playing with Hofer, he is a terrific puck handler, which is something the Blues need with the type of defensive transporters of the puck they have, guys that nneed it smoothly, cleanly and seamlessly. Maybe I’m missing another one or a couple, but there were only two games I can recall Binnington not being at his best: Dec. 19 at Tampa and April 4 at Nashville. He seemed to always keep the Blues in the game on most nnights, even those when the team in front of him stunk. Of course this season wasn’t what his rookie campaign was, and his GAA and save percentage steadily climbed each season from that 1.89/.927 he carried in the Stanley Cup-winning season, but Binnington drastically improved his GAA and save percentage from the past couple seasons, and I would argue this was his best full season in the NHL. Full marks for a terrific campaign.
My grade: A
Joel Hofer — Hofer made the most of his first full season in the NHL, and he even said after the season he proved he can play at this level. He’s right. He can. Tandemming with Binnington formed one of the better goalie duos on the NHL this season, and Hofer finished with a respectable 15-12-1 record with a 2.65 GAA and .914 save percentage. Of Hofer’s 27 starts, 16 were considered quality starts, just a smidge under Binnington’s .600 percentage at .593, which is still really good. His 8.2 GSAA is not bad either. Hofer’s record was hurt by a couple bad losses against San Jose and one against Columbus, but he also beat some excellent teams (Boston, Dallas, Florida). Hofer is a big guy (6-5, 179) and uses his size to his advantage and is an exceptional puck handler. The Blues have a good tandem built up in the organization, and goaltending –unlike several organizations — isn’t a problem here, nor should it be with a couple good ones in the pipeline. Hofer plays a confident game and at 23, he will only get better.
My grade: B+
GM/HEAD COACH:
Doug Armstrong — Armstrong said at the end of last season he felt he let the fans down by not making that Blues team competitive enough on a more consistent basis. Not reaching the playoffs was a culture shock and having a fan base fume at the GM for dismantling a Cup-winning roster just four short seasons ago. He tried to shake up the roster last summer by trading Krug to the Flyers, only to be rebuffed by a no-trade clause he handcuffed himself with with a number of his players, including Krug, Parayko, Faulk and Leddy. So in a sense, he had to virtually run the same roster back aside from a couple changes that went 37-38-7, which was a 28-point drop-off from the previous season. Armstrong did bring in Hayes from the Flyers in a lesser deal in the end, but that trade proved in the end to be fruitless. He banked on Kapanen, a waiver-wire pickup, and Vrana, a late-season acquisition last year, would be diamonds in the rough. They only proved to be fool’s gold. Hofer was brought in from within to help solidify the goaltending; Blais was re-signed and Sundqvist was the other acquisition to bring new blood to the roster. Armstrong said all along and he’s sticking to his guns that the Blues are building mainly from within. And the team did improve by 11 points to 92 (43-33-6). He really didn’t do much to improve the roster, the roster that was already here improved itself for the most part. He also made no changes at the trade deadline March 8 to try and solidify the roster that was still in the playoff chase, nor did he acquire any future assets for current players. He allowed the roster to take its course and see how it did, falling short in the end. Armstrong’s signing of Sundqvist was solid for the price, but trading for Hayes backfired. So in the end, he didn’t do anything to deter this year’s team, but he also didn’t do much of anything — other than Sundqvist — to improve it either.
My grade: C
Craig Berube — I said it before and I’ll stick to my feelings on this, ‘Chief’ was made the scapegoat of the team’s shortcomings before getting fired following a 6-4 loss against the Detroit Red Wings on Dec. 12. Berube likes his teams to play a certain style, and with the Blues transitioning more into a younger group that likes more rush attack than the ground and pound, chip, chase and forecheck style Berube was successful with in winning the Cup in 2019, he was doomed after last season missing out on the playoffs, a four-game slide and special teams that got off to a rotten start (8.4 percent power play, 31st in the NHL; 78.5 percent penalty kill, 20th in the league). The Blues were 26th in scoring (2.82 goals per game) and 23rd in goals-against (3.32) while giving up the sixth-most shots per game (32.4). Whether players were tuning him our or not, which always seems to be the excuse throw out there, is debatable. Berube was 13-14-1 when he was fired, an average record for an average team at the time.
My grade: C-
Drew Bannister — It’s never an easy situation when the coach gets fired in-season. But when Drew Bannister took over for Berube on Dec. 12, he already had a foot in the door with many of the guys on the roster in St. Louis, having coached many of them with the Springfield Thunderbirds of the American Hockey League. Some of the things that stood out to me about Bannister was his willingness to hold players, especially veterans, accountable for poor play. You like to see that, but I thought he could have actually done it more often. Bannister’s biggest challenge was getting on the same page with the veterans, and all things considered, I thought it went fine, which resulted in going 30-19-5, which was good for 13th in wins and points in that span. Bannister helped the Blues improve on the power play, hitting at a 22.8 percent clip, good for 13th, and the penalty kill was 79.4 percent also 13th in the league. They also were 12th in the league in goals-against at 2.87 per game. But the team really didn’t get better 5-on-5, where they were 28th in goals scored (95) and 24th at 2.87 goals per game. The Blues haven’t made a decision yet on a permanent coach moving forward, and Bannister’s interim label is still in limbo, but he is a finalist, and rightfully so, for the job. Based on the job he came in and did after taking over, the team responded well with a .556 winning percentage. All things considered, Bannister did more than an good job. Not sublime, but a solid job.
