2021-2022 S Blues Multi Purpose Thread Part 2

[tfriede2]

I think based on the answers given by Perron, and Armstrong it won't be long until a Perron extension is announced this summer. I could see a cut in salary with a lot of bonuses built in for him.

As someone who is a Tarasenko fan and while I understand and almost expect a trade involving him I found this quote by Armstrong interesting



If we can keep him a Blue I think the team benefit's more than not having his offense.

But this is DA, and he holds all the power here. Why would he be worried about Tarasenko next year when Tarasenko is signed next year? Tarasenko can’t force a trade. That statement means nothing to me, TBH. For all we know DA is planning to actively shop him this off-season. With that said, perhaps an extension is actuality possible (I doubt it, though); as a huge Tarasenko fan, I’m torn on a possible extension.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

But this is DA, and he holds all the power here. Why would he be worried about Tarasenko next year when Tarasenko is signed next year? Tarasenko can’t force a trade. That statement means nothing to me, TBH. For all we know DA is planning to actively shop him this off-season. With that said, perhaps an extension is actuality possible (I doubt it, though); as a huge Tarasenko fan, I’m torn on a possible extension.

As Army said. He's more worried about this upcoming year than 2 years from now.

 

[mk80]

But this is DA, and he holds all the power here. Why would he be worried about Tarasenko next year when Tarasenko is signed next year? Tarasenko can’t force a trade. That statement means nothing to me, TBH. For all we know DA is planning to actively shop him this off-season. With that said, perhaps an extension is actuality possible (I doubt it, though); as a huge Tarasenko fan, I’m torn on a possible extension.

I read the quote as, if Armstrong decides not to trade him this summer that everything will be fine with Tarasenko and the team again. Although I'm half expecting a trade involving him at this point, even if the relationship is healed, to free up cap space.

 

[PJJJP]

Man after watching some French open today I wonder how good would Kyrou be if he had Nadal's intensity. He has the skills but his effort comes and goes. I hope he can improve on that front

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Man after watching some French open today I wonder how good would Kyrou be if he had Nadal's intensity. He has the skills but his effort comes and goes. I hope he can improve on that front

You mean like almost every single player in the league? Not everyone can go at 150% at all times.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Completely disagree about not being able to win with Krug/Faulk on the second pairing. The issue is the first pairing, not the second. Signing Leddy to be the #1LHD is not good enough when Parayko is the #1RHD. Parayko can’t be our #1 defenseman. Not good enough, and this entire year proved that.

That's literally my point. Parayko isn't a #1. We all knew that three years ago. Faulk isn't really a #2 either, since he couldn't stop Nazem f***ing Kadri from running roughshod over us. However, Parayko did his job, while Faulk didn't do his. Parayko held Mackinnon and the rest of that first line to one good game out of six. It was the depth of the Avs that beat us, not the top of the roster. Faulk was in charge of the players after Mac/Rantanen/Landeskog, and he didn't do his job nearly as well as Parayko did his. Could you imagine him trying to defend against the other team's best? Yikes.

Hence why I brought up AP again - or really any #1 guy that you could pair with someone who's decent but not a world beater (Gunnarsson, Edmondson, etc for recent internal examples) - you don't want that guy paired with Parayko though. Let Parayko sit on the second pairing and be the shut down guy like Trouba, Toews, and McDonough are for their respective teams. Krug is also an issue, since we have a clear and obvious replacement for him in Peru at a fraction of the cost - yet we cannot sustain having both on the roster at the same time.

Parayko at 6.5M on the second pair is exactly where he should be. Faulk at 6.5M on the second pair is an overpay, b/c he can't handle the second line of the Avs, as we just saw. Krug at 6.5 on the second pair is an overpay, because we have a guy who can do 80% of what he can do for 1/6 of the price. Hence why we're in this bind and have really no clear path forward, unless we can magically convince Krug to waive his NTC for Arizona and get Chykrun (sp) in return. (Or some other LD of his caliber and his price point - which really doesn't exist lol)

 

[tfriede2]

Why are you putting the sole blame on Faulk? Parayko had the benefit of one if the top 5 defensive forwards in the NHL in ROR handling the MacKinnon line. What help did Faulk have?

 

[ValHaller]

I don't think it's really fair to pin the Kadri issues on Faulk. Exhibit A on 2nd Avs goal.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Why are you putting the sole blame on Faulk? Parayko had the benefit of one if the top 5 defensive forwards in the NHL in ROR handling the MacKinnon line. What help did Faulk have?

Well first off, I'm not placing the blame solely on Faulk. I've mentioned Krug as an issue as well. Let me put it this way:

Neither Faulk nor Parayko are #1s. I think we agree on that. Then the question is, which one makes more sense on the second pair if we had to pick (B/c we will need to pick if we're really going to solve this issue). I think it's pretty clear that Parayko wins that hands down, as he can do something that Faulk cannot, which is play shut down D against top competition. We won a Cup with him in this role.

I like Faulk a lot, and think he's a really solid player. But he's NOT the player you win a SC with on the second pairing, unless you have a bonafide #1 AND a bonafide shutdown guy for the second pair. Hence he's a #3, and the problem becomes that he's overpaid at 6.5M. Like, if we had AP as our #1, and Faulk was lefthanded and played with Parayko on the second pair (or AP on the first), I'd say sure, we can win with that. But if that's the case, we need to pay Faulk around 2/3 of what we're paying him now.

Basically, both Krug and Faulk are overpaid #3's at best. Parayko is a reasonably paid #2. We don't have a #1. We don't have a path forward to get a #1 that I can see. Hence why I think we're going to keep struggling until we solve that issue. At the moment getting that #1 is our biggest issue. However, once we acquire a #1, we run into a second problem of having to rework our salary structure to fit said #1 in. When that happens, both Krug and Faulk will become a huge financial liability.

The only thing that could make it all work is if we find a true #1D who's also left handed and makes under 5M, while also trading Krug for no salary back. Chykrun fits a lot of that criteria, but no one is really sure if he's an AP level #1 yet. Not to mention he's going to be all sorts of expensive to aquire.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Well first off, I'm not placing the blame solely on Faulk. I've mentioned Krug as an issue as well. Let me put it this way:

Neither Faulk nor Parayko are #1s. I think we agree on that. Then the question is, which one makes more sense on the second pair if we had to pick (B/c we will need to pick if we're really going to solve this issue). I think it's pretty clear that Parayko wins that hands down, as he can do something that Faulk cannot, which is play shut down D against top competition. We won a Cup with him in this role.

I like Faulk a lot, and think he's a really solid player. But he's NOT the player you win a SC with on the second pairing, unless you have a bonafide #1 AND a bonafide shutdown guy for the second pair. Hence he's a #3, and the problem becomes that he's overpaid at 6.5M. Like, if we had AP as our #1, and Faulk was lefthanded and played with Parayko on the second pair (or AP on the first), I'd say sure, we can win with that. But if that's the case, we need to pay Faulk around 2/3 of what we're paying him now.

Basically, both Krug and Faulk are overpaid #3's at best. Parayko is a reasonably paid #2. We don't have a #1. We don't have a path forward to get a #1 that I can see. Hence why I think we're going to keep struggling until we solve that issue. At the moment getting that #1 is our biggest issue. However, once we acquire a #1, we run into a second problem of having to rework our salary structure to fit said #1 in. When that happens, both Krug and Faulk will become a huge financial liability.

Krug wasn't even on the ice. Not sure why we're blaming him

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Krug wasn't even on the ice. Not sure why we're blaming him

I've seen two years of Krug. I saw him when he played for Boston. He's a pretty known commodity at this point. He has value, he runs a good PP, but he's also totally outmatched 5v5. Plus again, we have a Krug-clone in Peru at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Well first off, I'm not placing the blame solely on Faulk. I've mentioned Krug as an issue as well. Let me put it this way:

Neither Faulk nor Parayko are #1s. I think we agree on that. Then the question is, which one makes more sense on the second pair if we had to pick (B/c we will need to pick if we're really going to solve this issue). I think it's pretty clear that Parayko wins that hands down, as he can do something that Faulk cannot, which is play shut down D against top competition. We won a Cup with him in this role.

I like Faulk a lot, and think he's a really solid player. But he's NOT the player you win a SC with on the second pairing, unless you have a bonafide #1 AND a bonafide shutdown guy for the second pair. Hence he's a #3, and the problem becomes that he's overpaid at 6.5M. Like, if we had AP as our #1, and Faulk was lefthanded and played with Parayko on the second pair (or AP on the first), I'd say sure, we can win with that. But if that's the case, we need to pay Faulk around 2/3 of what we're paying him now.

Basically, both Krug and Faulk are overpaid #3's at best. Parayko is a reasonably paid #2. We don't have a #1. We don't have a path forward to get a #1 that I can see. Hence why I think we're going to keep struggling until we solve that issue. At the moment getting that #1 is our biggest issue. However, once we acquire a #1, we run into a second problem of having to rework our salary structure to fit said #1 in. When that happens, both Krug and Faulk will become a huge financial liability.

This is silly. Faulk would clearly be best player on 2nd pairing of any remaining team. He’s probably better than any D on Oil and better than anyone other than Fox or Hedman on remaining East teams. Colorado is only one where you could maybe take their 2nd best D over Faulk.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I've seen two years of Krug. I saw him when he played for Boston. He's not it fam.

I also seen how the Blues PP completely fell apart without him when they weren't playing 7 defenseman so they could completely shelter Perunovich.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

This is silly. Faulk would clearly be best player on 2nd pairing of any remaining team. He’s probably better than any D on Oil and better than anyone other than Fox or Hedman on remaining East teams. Colorado is only one where you could maybe take their 2nd best D over Faulk.

I'd take D. Toews, Sergachev, McDonaugh, and Trouba over Faulk any day. Again - for the role we need from them.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I'd take D. Toews, Sergachev, McDonaugh, and Trouba over Faulk any day. Again - for the role we need from them.

Maybe Toews. Sergachev is talented but super sheltered, McDonaugh is strong defensively but not as good overall, and Trouba while paid much more is inferior in pretty much all aspects other than cheap shots to knock out opponents.

 

[Reality Czech]

Well first off, I'm not placing the blame solely on Faulk. I've mentioned Krug as an issue as well. Let me put it this way:

Neither Faulk nor Parayko are #1s. I think we agree on that. Then the question is, which one makes more sense on the second pair if we had to pick (B/c we will need to pick if we're really going to solve this issue). I think it's pretty clear that Parayko wins that hands down, as he can do something that Faulk cannot, which is play shut down D against top competition. We won a Cup with him in this role.

I like Faulk a lot, and think he's a really solid player. But he's NOT the player you win a SC with on the second pairing, unless you have a bonafide #1 AND a bonafide shutdown guy for the second pair. Hence he's a #3, and the problem becomes that he's overpaid at 6.5M. Like, if we had AP as our #1, and Faulk was lefthanded and played with Parayko on the second pair (or AP on the first), I'd say sure, we can win with that. But if that's the case, we need to pay Faulk around 2/3 of what we're paying him now.

Basically, both Krug and Faulk are overpaid #3's at best. Parayko is a reasonably paid #2. We don't have a #1. We don't have a path forward to get a #1 that I can see. Hence why I think we're going to keep struggling until we solve that issue. At the moment getting that #1 is our biggest issue. However, once we acquire a #1, we run into a second problem of having to rework our salary structure to fit said #1 in. When that happens, both Krug and Faulk will become a huge financial liability.

The only thing that could make it all work is if we find a true #1D who's also left handed and makes under 5M, while also trading Krug for no salary back. Chykrun fits a lot of that criteria, but no one is really sure if he's an AP level #1 yet. Not to mention he's going to be all sorts of expensive to aquire.

I am never a fan of statement like "a team will NEVER win a Cup with x player" because there isn't one magic formula to winning a Cup. When Pittsburgh won their last Cup, their D corps wasn't even league average on paper but they played as a team and got the job done. Washington didn't have big names outside of Carlson, who isn't even that great defensively. So it's not like a team HAS to have a certain arrangement on defense to win a Cup. Heck, I don't think Colorado's defense is any better than ours when healthy. But losing your #1 puck mover would hurt any team in the league and so much pressure was put on Faulk, Parayko and Leddy (when available), that of course they would get exposed from time to time.

I can't figure out how anyone could be critical of Faulk after the season he just had. It's unrealistic to act like Faulk is supposed to stop Kadri on his own, defense is a team issue. Parayko didn't shut down MacKinnon alone, it was a team effort. If the team had been healthy and played to our potential, then we would have given Colorado a run for their money but unfortunately that didn't happen. Sometimes you just have to give credit to the other team and admit you got beat.

You're allowed to have your opinion, but I guarantee Armstrong, Blues teammates and people within the hockey world do not consider Faulk and Krug as "overpaid 3s." Krug is a team leader, heart and soul guy and they aren't trading him any time soon. Many fans seem obsessed with finding that perfect 1D, but it seems like most of these guys are drafted by their franchise or are seriously overpriced, either via trade or UFA.

 

[bleedblue1223]

 

[PocketNines]

Completely disagree about not being able to win with Krug/Faulk on the second pairing. The issue is the first pairing, not the second. Signing Leddy to be the #1LHD is not good enough when Parayko is the #1RHD. Parayko can’t be our #1 defenseman. Not good enough, and this entire year proved that.

I don't think you can win with Krug in the top 4. He isn't fast enough to play with Colorado in the playoffs. It was a nightmare two years ago and I don't think he's any faster now.

I think Leddy-Parayko is as close as I've seen to Bouwmeester-Parayko and it belongs as the second pairing. Bonafide #1LD-Faulk should be the first pairing. I agree with Badgers about the defense being a misfit mess. Right now the Blues almost needed to play 7 defensemen in the playoffs just to mix and match abilities.

Chychrun-Leddy should cost the same amount as Krug-Scandella. I understand that moving Krug is easier said than done.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I give the chance they trade Krug about the same as MT giving the Blues a hometown discount.

0%

 

[Xerloris]

Good for him, he was tossed into a rough spot and did better than can be expected from AHL depth.

 

[PocketNines]

I give the chance they trade Krug about the same as MT giving the Blues a hometown discount.

0%

I think that's true this year. I don't see Krug moved this year. At the same time, that's the least efficient 6.5M on the team

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I think that's true this year. I don't see Krug moved this year. At the same time, that's the least efficient 6.5M on the team

I don't see him traded until at least his full NTC goes byebye

 

[PocketNines]

I don't see him traded until at least his full NTC goes byebye

That's a shame if true because without his cap space I don't believe they can catch up to Colorado

 

[Linkens Mastery]

That's a shame if true because without his cap space I don't believe they can catch up to Colorado

I disagree. Cap can be manipulated. And there's good players with lower cap hit as well that we can target. Sanheim is below 5mil, Mayfield is below 2mil, Chychrun is below 5mil. Barbashev and Scandella combined are more than all of those players.

Then add in next season Avs are going to be trying to resign Mackinnon, their Starter is a UFA this season. They are going to start slowing down as well.

 

[PocketNines]

I disagree. Cap can be manipulated. And there's good players with lower cap hit as well that we can target. Sanheim is below 5mil, Mayfield is below 2mil, Chychrun is below 5mil. Barbashev and Scandella combined are more than all of those players.

Then add in next season Avs are going to be trying to resign Mackinnon, their Starter is a UFA this season. They are going to start slowing down as well.

If you are trading a 2d round pick, Sundqvist and Walman and not keeping Leddy, and then letting Krug who is clearly the lesser player go back into that spot, you are moving backward as an organization.

Chychrun, Sanheim and Mayfield all in the same sentence is strange. You've got 1st, 2d and 3d pairing guys all muddled in as if it's the same option. That is not having any vision for the defense. You have to first think about the attributes these players bring in a playoff situation specifically against Colorado.