2021-2022 S Blues Multi-Purpose Thread Part 3

[Robb_K]

Yup, as were Blues legends Ray Ferraro and Olli Jokinen

Ferraro played well in his stint for The Blues.- especially for his advanced age. I enjoyed his time in St. Louis.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Anonymous sources are used all the time by writers, that's part of how you gain sources and don't lose them. You are complaining about them as not being credible when you don't even know who they are. It sounds like you more or less don't really understand the industry and are just shouting at clouds about it.

I'm not even a huge JR fan but a lot of you just complain because his 'sources' are saying things that you don't like to read.

I actually worked in journalism during college. I know its not the big time, but I do have a small amount of personal experience. At any rate, I don't think personal experience is necessary to understand how anonymous sources work. A good journalist isn't going to just allow any schmo to get their quotes printed as an "anonymous source".

I don't think I ever said JR's anonymous source(s) weren't credible. I think its likely he has mostly been quoting Tarasenko's agent(s) most of the time in the story we have been discussing. He's fine as a source. He would be someone we'd want to hear from. But he should be quoted ON THE RECORD.

My complaint is that JR allows him to hide behind anonymity, doling out "anonymous source" status when it is not warranted. You shouldn't just print everything every source tells you, but won't go on record, and allow them to steer the agenda behind the protection of anonymity. Let me ask, WHY wouldn't the agent go on record? Is there something in those statements that is being exaggerated, or even intentionally distorted? We will never know, because no one is accountable for those quotes.

I know, some people will argue that JR can't help it if the guy won't go on record. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PRINT THE QUOTES. The cost of getting your message out there is that you have to agree to go on record for the most important things. JR has to decide whether the source warrants protected status, and the message is too important to not print. I have never seen any inkling that he has a threshold for that. But looking back, the water he carried for Vlad's agent shows that JR allowed himself to be used as a tool. He seems to have no idea that he holds power in this arrangement, just like the people he is interviewing. Or if he does, he has no idea how to use it effectively to write better sourced stories. As I posted above, there are good journalists who understand how to function. Emily Kaplan in one passing visit during a home game told us more accurate information about where things stood with Tarasenko (even though Armstrong wouldn't answer her direct question, though he answered other things) than JR did all year. She's a good journalist.

 

[Reality Czech]

He was #65 before, right?

Wasn’t Guerin #13?

Guess he graduated from his training camp number to a real NHLers number.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Guess he graduated from his training camp number to a real NHLers number.

He’s a big boy now!

 

[STL fan in MN]

The Blues apparently have the 26th best contracts in the league according to our favorite person, Dom.
NHL contract efficiency rankings: Grading every team in the league

This part is particularly cringe worthy:

As if Blues fans didn’t hate me enough…

Well, here they are — one of the league’s top teams languishing near the bottom five in cap efficiency. Oops.

We know already that the model unfairly brings the Blues down a peg, and that will come across when grading the team’s contracts. A lot of players are better than GSVA makes them out to be and so the team’s contract efficiency is likely better than given credit for here. Players like Ryan O’Reilly and Vladimir Tarasenko come in looking like slightly negative value contracts when they’re probably closer to slightly positive. Especially O’Reilly. Jordan Kyrou should look like a much bigger steal too, and Robert Thomas has the potential to really outproduce his deal.

So he’s fully aware his model is crap! Yet instead of working to fix it, he just puts the content out there still.

The Blues may have some questionable contracts but overall, I think Army does a good job.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

I think his reporting of Tarasenko's opinion/stance/desire in the beginning was accurate (it should have been since his anonymous source was very obviously someone in Tarasenko's camp who wanted the story out there). No one's issue has been that he was incorrect about Tarasenko requesting a trade or that he misrepresented Tarasenko's desires. The issue is with his subsequent "reporting" of the situation.

Since the trade request came out, pretty much everything he has written about it has either been his own blind speculation or commentary from anonymous sources who had a clear interest in Tarasenko being moved. Every article he wrote for a 2+ month window was premised on the idea that Army had to trade him and was completely bungling the situation by asking for too much.

Like his article premised around an unnamed 'league source' who said "The trajectory doesn’t get any better,” the source said. “They shit on this guy … to their own detriment. It’s time to move him. The train has left the station.”

JR's guarantee that Tarasenko gets traded is appearing to age poorly: "And no, the relationship is not reparable. He will be traded. I usually don’t like guaranteeing anything, but I feel pretty comfortable guaranteeing this one." Tarasenko could still be traded before his contract expires and I do think that the relationship was damaged enough that an extension isn't happening (although given Army's history of offers to UFAs who are already 30+, I don't think we would have ever offered him close to his true market value). We can't say that JR was "wrong" about this guarantee yet, but I do think it is fair to recognize that this quote is an example of him either badly misreading Army's willingness to hold Tarasenko or an example of his willingness to push the narrative of a source.

But by far my biggest issue is JR's inability or unwillingness to demand/report crucial details from sources that he is carrying water for. We still have no idea how many teams Tarasenko was willing to waive his NTC for. Maybe it was the 10ish teams JR wrote about early last summer. Maybe "he will play almost anywhere" as JR wrote after the expansion draft. Although that seems unlikely given JR's report in the same article that Seattle declined to pick Tarasenko in part because his NTC made flipping him more complicated. We got crickets from JR regarding the notion that Tarasenko's trade value may have been negative last summer. A team had a chance to take him for free and passed in part because they weren't sure if they could trade him for an asset with salary retained. Rather than wondering what that meant for his trade value, JR doubled down on the idea that it was the Blues' handling of the situation that destroyed his trade value. For someone who cited tons of anonymous league sources, it is baffling that we never even got a whiff of the types of packages being offered for him.

At the end of the day, JR's reporting of the Tarasenko situation has been very incomplete. He has (or at least had) a great source from Tarasenko's camp that he agreed to leave anonymous in order to push the desired narrative from Tarasenko's camp. After that, he either peppered in a lot of his own speculation (or the source's opinion) as definitive statements that a trade was the only realistic option for Army until the eve of camp when it became clear that wasn't happening. He repeatedly emphasized how broken the relationship was, but was never able to (publicly) pin down exactly how many teams Tarasenko was willing to go to. We never heard what Tarasenko's trade value was last summer. We got months of his reporting blasting the team for mishandling the situation without any information about what the potential trade returns were. And then at the end of the year Tarasenko was our leading scorer and the idea that Army should have just taken the best offer on the table looked pretty silly.

I don't think JR misreported any specific facts in his Tarasenko coverage. But he absolutely wrote about the matter with a specific narrative and that narrative turned out to be a complete misread of the situation.

Brian39 has the receipts, as usual. When you present one side so forcefully as though it’s fait accompli, which is exactly what JR did, it’s immensely important for JR to remember that actual events get the final vote and judgment. He lost a lot of credibility with me, and sounds like I’m not alone. That’s a big ass story to handle that way, so that’s a judgment issue in my mind.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I actually worked in journalism during college. I know its not the big time, but I do have a small amount of personal experience. At any rate, I don't think personal experience is necessary to understand how anonymous sources work. A good journalist isn't going to just allow any schmo to get their quotes printed as an "anonymous source".

I don't think I ever said JR's anonymous source(s) weren't credible. I think its likely he has mostly been quoting Tarasenko's agent(s) most of the time in the story we have been discussing. He's fine as a source. He would be someone we'd want to hear from. But he should be quoted ON THE RECORD.

My complaint is that JR allows him to hide behind anonymity, doling out "anonymous source" status when it is not warranted. You shouldn't just print everything every source tells you, but won't go on record, and allow them to steer the agenda behind the protection of anonymity. Let me ask, WHY wouldn't the agent go on record? Is there something in those statements that is being exaggerated, or even intentionally distorted? We will never know, because no one is accountable for those quotes.

I know, some people will argue that JR can't help it if the guy won't go on record. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PRINT THE QUOTES. The cost of getting your message out there is that you have to agree to go on record for the most important things. JR has to decide whether the source warrants protected status, and the message is too important to not print. I have never seen any inkling that he has a threshold for that. But looking back, the water he carried for Vlad's agent shows that JR allowed himself to be used as a tool. He seems to have no idea that he holds power in this arrangement, just like the people he is interviewing. Or if he does, he has no idea how to use it effectively to write better sourced stories. As I posted above, there are good journalists who understand how to function. Emily Kaplan in one passing visit during a home game told us more accurate information about where things stood with Tarasenko (even though Armstrong wouldn't answer her direct question, though he answered other things) than JR did all year. She's a good journalist.

The biggest issue with anonymous sources is it allows them to get their agenda across without being able to assess their credibility or whether they are just using the journalist for their propaganda. At the very least, if he didn't want to out the source, he could have referred to him as a "source close to Tarasenko" or something like that.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

The Blues apparently have the 26th best contracts in the league according to our favorite person, Dom.
NHL contract efficiency rankings: Grading every team in the league

This part is particularly cringe worthy:

So he’s fully aware his model is crap! Yet instead of working to fix it, he just puts the content out there still.

The Blues may have some questionable contracts but overall, I think Army does a good job.

Dom’s dilemma is that his process is largely centered around gambling, and I played around with it and his model generally works over time with intelligent bankroll management that factors a lot of variance. That’s the bread and butter, and that’s what brought him to the table in the first place. But, as it pertains to The Athletic, there’s these offshoot things he does that are interesting concepts and maybe at times a little provocative. It’s probably the work that gets him the most hits, but not actually what the North Star of his basic product is about.

Historically, with the gambling model, when a team falls out of line with his baseline, that’s just more of a opportunity, and it largely corrects itself and he profits along the way. Last season, he took an absolute beatdown on his model with a horrendous downswing in the middle of the season. The Blues were the top driver of that. Dom was open about this, so not a cheap shot, but he literally had mental health issues with the downswing.

I think there is some awareness there on his part that there are things the Blues do that his process doesn’t capture (we pass ok shots to hunt down great ones), but it’s a delicate dance for him. He isn’t just going to nuke what’s got him here. The Blues sucking would be a signal maybe he can hold his ground with what got him to the place he is at. However, there is enough to signal he might have to find a way to recalibrate it, and so he does this little song and dance on these pieces that serve as a wink and nod until he figures it out.

On Twitter, he will treat us Blues fans like we are Satan incarnate, but in his actual work you can see him doing a little triangulation attempt whenever he has to talk about the Blues.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

That’s the thing with Dom’s of the world that have an edge and share. Because you have an edge in 2020 does not mean you have an edge in 2022.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The Blues apparently have the 26th best contracts in the league according to our favorite person, Dom.
NHL contract efficiency rankings: Grading every team in the league

This part is particularly cringe worthy:

So he’s fully aware his model is crap! Yet instead of working to fix it, he just puts the content out there still.

The Blues may have some questionable contracts but overall, I think Army does a good job.

How many new ways can Dom get to have his model show that it hates the Blues' players? Its all just the same information over and over, packaged to look like something else.

The Blues have a lot of expiring contracts, including RFAs, this season. The team looks like its poised to take another swing with this core, and then things will change.

Parayko may not be vying for a Norris, but I just don't see the horrible detrimental contract that Dom's model projects. He seems fine (when his back isn't hurt) and looks a hell of a lot better when he has a reliable partner, which has been the bigger problem.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Dom’s dilemma is that his process is largely centered around gambling, and I played around with it and his model generally works over time with intelligent bankroll management that factors a lot of variance. That’s the bread and butter, and that’s what brought him to the table in the first place. But, as it pertains to The Athletic, there’s these offshoot things he does that are interesting concepts and maybe at times a little provocative. It’s probably the work that gets him the most hits, but not actually what the North Star of his basic product is about.

Historically, with the gambling model, when a team falls out of line with his baseline, that’s just more of a opportunity, and it largely corrects itself and he profits along the way. Last season, he took an absolute beatdown on his model with a horrendous downswing in the middle of the season. The Blues were the top driver of that. Dom was open about this, so not a cheap shot, but he literally had mental health issues with the downswing.

I think there is some awareness there on his part that there are things the Blues do that his process doesn’t capture (we pass ok shots to hunt down great ones), but it’s a delicate dance for him. He isn’t just going to nuke what’s got him here. The Blues sucking would be a signal maybe he can hold his ground with what got him to the place he is at. However, there is enough to signal he might have to find a way to recalibrate it, and so he does this little song and dance on these pieces that serve as a wink and nod until he figures it out.

On Twitter, he will treat us Blues fans like we are Satan incarnate, but in his actual work you can see him doing a little triangulation attempt whenever he has to talk about the Blues.

I haven't followed any of Dom's Twitter interactions. But on the Athletic, both in columns and in the comments, he's been kind of an ass toward Blues' fans. I actually don't have a problem with him making the best model he can, and to have its limitations be illustrated throughout the season. That's actually pretty courageous, in my mind. But we spent all season with him telling us how bad the Blues really were, and that they were winning off luck. The dust settles and it lasted ALL season, and after the playoffs the Blues have a strong argument as the 3rd best team in the league, at least one of the top 5. Its the way he was condescending toward Blues fans.

He assumes we are numerically illiterate. He doesn't show intellectual curiosity as to what his model is missing with the Blues...just assumes the trends will even out and the Blues will "regress to the mean" and his model will look right. So his "columns" don't really contain any interesting discussion about what the model sees, just smarmy responses to frustrated Blues' fans. The condescension was pretty thick this past year.

Its not just the Blues that fall in this category. Over the last couple years, the Islanders, the Wild, etc. There is a class of teams that are not driven by offensive production the way his model values it, and he underestimates them.

I had canceled my Athletic subscription after it ran out following the NY Times buying the publication. But I got another year for a giant discount again. I fully expect to cancel when that runs out. Its not just at the Athletic, but I really wish hockey wasn't getting inundated by all the sports gambling influence. It really turns me off to buying a subscription when gambling ads show up in the column, for what is supposed to be a subscription model that does not muddy up things with advertising or 'click' counting.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

I haven't followed any of Dom's Twitter interactions. But on the Athletic, both in columns and in the comments, he's been kind of an ass toward Blues' fans. I actually don't have a problem with him making the best model he can, and to have its limitations be illustrated throughout the season. That's actually pretty courageous, in my mind. But we spent all season with him telling us how bad the Blues really were, and that they were winning off luck. The dust settles and it lasted ALL season, and after the playoffs the Blues have a strong argument as the 3rd best team in the league, at least one of the top 5. Its the way he was condescending toward Blues fans.

He assumes we are numerically illiterate. He doesn't show intellectual curiosity as to what his model is missing with the Blues...just assumes the trends will even out and the Blues will "regress to the mean" and his model will look right. So his "columns" don't really contain any interesting discussion about what the model sees, just smarmy responses to frustrated Blues' fans. The condescension was pretty thick this past year.

Its not just the Blues that fall in this category. Over the last couple years, the Islanders, the Wild, etc. There is a class of teams that are not driven by offensive production the way his model values it, and he underestimates them.

I had canceled my Athletic subscription after it ran out following the NY Times buying the publication. But I got another year for a giant discount again. I fully expect to cancel when that runs out. Its not just at the Athletic, but I really wish hockey wasn't getting inundated by all the sports gambling influence. It really turns me off to buying a subscription when gambling ads show up in the column, for what is supposed to be a subscription model that does not muddy up things with advertising or 'click' counting.

Yeah, but I think on average staying the course has served him well, and he is wearing two hats with this analysis that is an offshoot of it, so which master does he serve? I see him as boxed in. He is a mix of arrogant and immature to a degree, in how he handles some things, but the core of what he built essentially works for its initial purpose. Like you, I really respect that he shows his work, obviously later after he shops for price and puts in his bets.

I guess my empathy comes from someone that was pretty good at poker from around 2005-2011. My “model” was walking in on Friday or Saturday night, downing a couple beers, playing fairly loose for an hour or 2, and then tightening up as the literal drunks stumbled in. And it worked, until it didn’t work that well. It eventually was going to resemble something like actual work to maintain real profits, and that’s no fun.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

How many new ways can Dom get to have his model show that it hates the Blues' players? Its all just the same information over and over, packaged to look like something else.

The Blues have a lot of expiring contracts, including RFAs, this season. The team looks like its poised to take another swing with this core, and then things will change.

Parayko may not be vying for a Norris, but I just don't see the horrible detrimental contract that Dom's model projects. He seems fine (when his back isn't hurt) and looks a hell of a lot better when he has a reliable partner, which has been the bigger problem.

The issue I have with his contract is it takes him until he is like 52. But I think the next few years will be good value for what he brings and (like with Schenn) a couple bad contract years in back end are reasonable price to pay for keeping top guys at reasonable number during our window.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Could the Blues use Johan Larsson?

 

[The Note]

Far be it from me to defend Dom, largely because I have no desire to do so, but I’m not overly surprised the Blues are so low in this ranking. Those rankings value term and “surplus value” generated by the players. The Blues are in a spot where some key guys are on expiring deals (ROR, Tarasenko), handful of guys already got the Armstrong special of deals that are decent now but going to be rough for at least the last 2-3 years (Parayko, Schenn, Faulk, Krug) and Thomas now has a big new deal, with Kyrou likely right behind him. They also don’t have Perron providing PPG winger play for bargain bin prices anymore either. I think the only contract you could say is a real homerun currently is Buch’s. If Bolduc or Neigbours, or some other prospect really hits this year then I’m sure that would be a huge boost. The Scandella deal is objectively bad. The Binnington deal is probably borderline.

I think the weird valuation of Parayko’s deal is dragging things down a bit here, but I think - as of right now - the Blues are more or less where I’d expect them on something like this, problems with Dom aside.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

Far be it from me to defend Dom, largely because I have no desire to do so, but I’m not overly surprised the Blues are so low in this ranking. Those rankings value term and “surplus value” generated by the players. The Blues are in a spot where some key guys are on expiring deals (ROR, Tarasenko), handful of guys already got the Armstrong special of deals that are decent now but going to be rough for at least the last 2-3 years (Parayko, Schenn, Faulk, Krug) and Thomas now has a big new deal, with Kyrou likely right behind him. They also don’t have Perron providing PPG winger play for bargain bin prices anymore either. I think the only contract you could say is a real homerun currently is Buch’s. If Bolduc or Neigbours, or some other prospect really hits this year then I’m sure that would be a huge boost. The Scandella deal is objectively bad. The Binnington deal is probably borderline.

I think the weird valuation of Parayko’s deal is dragging things down a bit here, but I think - as of right now - the Blues are more or less where I’d expect them on something like this, problems with Dom aside.

I’m in a similar mindset. As you said, I don’t want to defend Dom. But I do understand not thinking the current cap structure for the Blues will end up well without player movement. But that’s almost by design. All of us know that Armstrong is building a team that wants to compete right now, not trying to organize a structure that will maximize value for the next 4+ years. If the risk of a contract is that the structure won’t look good in the future, Armstrong will take that risk if it maximizes the ability of the team now. Whether the moves he’s made accomplish that end is another matter. I know Armstrong likes to view a player on whether he can help now AND in the future. But I’d definitely say he’s leaning towards the former as opposed to the latter.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Far be it from me to defend Dom, largely because I have no desire to do so, but I’m not overly surprised the Blues are so low in this ranking. Those rankings value term and “surplus value” generated by the players. The Blues are in a spot where some key guys are on expiring deals (ROR, Tarasenko), handful of guys already got the Armstrong special of deals that are decent now but going to be rough for at least the last 2-3 years (Parayko, Schenn, Faulk, Krug) and Thomas now has a big new deal, with Kyrou likely right behind him. They also don’t have Perron providing PPG winger play for bargain bin prices anymore either. I think the only contract you could say is a real homerun currently is Buch’s. If Bolduc or Neigbours, or some other prospect really hits this year then I’m sure that would be a huge boost. The Scandella deal is objectively bad. The Binnington deal is probably borderline.

I think the weird valuation of Parayko’s deal is dragging things down a bit here, but I think - as of right now - the Blues are more or less where I’d expect them on something like this, problems with Dom aside.

How many different ways does he need to tell us his model things the Blues suck?

 

[STL fan in MN]

Could the Blues use Johan Larsson?

Can he play the 4th line?

I wouldn’t mind bringing in someone for cheap to play with Acciari on the 4th line as I don’t really like our current winger options there - Leivo, Brown, Frk, Highmore etc. but I don’t think Larson really fits that role well either.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

Could the Blues use Johan Larsson?

Always liked the player, but it appears the Blues are going for a committee type of 4th line with 6-7 players battling in camp for a spot. While Larsson is better than Highmore/Frk/Angello/Leivo/Bitten/Alexandrov, I like the idea of a rotating fourth line, at least until Toropchenko returns.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Could the Blues use Johan Larsson?

Would he sign for league minimum?

 

[Brian39]

We are in a window and have somewhat mortgaged the future to maintain that window. Without that context, our cap situation in 3+ years is brutal. But I'd mortgage the future (as much as Army has) again to try and win another Cup in the short term. I don't care that Schenn, Parayko, etc will likely provide a contribution well below their cap hit for several years in the future if they contribute to winning right now.

And not for nothing, but this article doesn't at all factor in the ease of getting out of contracts in the future. A backloaded 7 year deal that is all signing bonus and includes a full NMC is considered the same 'value' as a frontloaded 7 year deal at the same money that is paid fully as salary and has no trade protection. Army has drawn his line in the sand regarding NMCs and when you refuse to give that out to players that could get it on the market, you have to boost the appeal of another portion of your offer. A refusal to give out an NMC has absolutely forced Army to budge on term/AAV to keep guys. That isn't factored into the future value in this model and I don't know how you would factor it in. But in the real world, I'm pretty confident that we won't have all of Krug, Faulk, Leddy, Schenn, Saad, and Binner beyond 2025. Not a single one of those guys has a full NTC by that summer and Army can use the threat of waivers on all of them. Moreover, all of those contracts backdive in the later years, making them more appealing to teams on a real-world budget (and/or make a buyout easier to stomach). A backdiving contract with a modified NTC and no signing bonuses is a hell of a lot easier to get out from under than a guy with a full NMC and a bunch of bonuses. Army is well aware of that and specifically structured all of these contracts with that in mind.

Our focus is on trying to win in 2023, 2024, and 2025. Most (and maybe all) of the above group will be here for that window. We will rely on Neighbours/Bolduc to contribute on ELCs for some of that time, we're relying on Thomas to take the final step to being an undisputed top 20 NHL center, we're relying on Kyrou to be a PPG player and then we will supplement that group as we can. And then there will likely be major changes in 2025 with a cap that is exploding.

We have given guys bloated cap hit contracts beyond that time but structured them in a way that they can be moved. The state of our team in 2025 will dictate how many get moved, how desperate we are to move them, and whether we are looking to pay teams to take the full contract or looking to retain salary on them in exchange for futures assets.

When you exclude those considerations, our future looks bleak and I don't disagree too much with the ranking. But when you consider our real-world goals and the structure of our contracts, I'm pretty happy with our cap situation.

 

[Reality Czech]

I’m in a similar mindset. As you said, I don’t want to defend Dom. But I do understand not thinking the current cap structure for the Blues will end up well without player movement. But that’s almost by design. All of us know that Armstrong is building a team that wants to compete right now, not trying to organize a structure that will maximize value for the next 4+ years. If the risk of a contract is that the structure won’t look good in the future, Armstrong will take that risk if it maximizes the ability of the team now. Whether the moves he’s made accomplish that end is another matter. I know Armstrong likes to view a player on whether he can help now AND in the future. But I’d definitely say he’s leaning towards the former as opposed to the former.

Isn't this a normal cycle for successful teams? You need to get guys on good value deals to form a championship team, whether it's via draft, free agency or trade. But once the team has success and the players prove they are worth more money, then you have to seek out new "value players." Another big factor of course is aging, when you have veteran guys like Schenn, whose best years are probably behind him and is shifting from good value to average or worse.

We can see the same thing with the Avs this year. They had lots of guys on good value deals, MacKinnon chiefly, but that only lasts so long. Same for the Lightning. They won Cups based on having amazing depth but you can only keep that depth together for so long before you either have to give them a raise or move them.

Unfortunately for the Blues, our best two values in Thomas and Kyrou won't be cheap much longer so Army will have to find other guys to fill key roles as veterans leave the team. I think a lot of people know this is the last run with the old core before some kind of transition next summer.

Edit: What Brian said.

 

[joe galiba]

We are in a window and have somewhat mortgaged the future to maintain that window. Without that context, our cap situation in 3+ years is brutal. But I'd mortgage the future (as much as Army has) again to try and win another Cup in the short term. I don't care that Schenn, Parayko, etc will likely provide a contribution well below their cap hit for several years in the future if they contribute to winning right now.

And not for nothing, but this article doesn't at all factor in the ease of getting out of contracts in the future. A backloaded 7 year deal that is all signing bonus and includes a full NMC is considered the same 'value' as a frontloaded 7 year deal at the same money that is paid fully as salary and has no trade protection. Army has drawn his line in the sand regarding NMCs and when you refuse to give that out to players that could get it on the market, you have to boost the appeal of another portion of your offer. A refusal to give out an NMC has absolutely forced Army to budge on term/AAV to keep guys. That isn't factored into the future value in this model and I don't know how you would factor it in. But in the real world, I'm pretty confident that we won't have all of Krug, Faulk, Leddy, Schenn, Saad, and Binner beyond 2025. Not a single one of those guys has a full NTC by that summer and Army can use the threat of waivers on all of them. Moreover, all of those contracts backdive in the later years, making them more appealing to teams on a real-world budget (and/or make a buyout easier to stomach). A backdiving contract with a modified NTC and no signing bonuses is a hell of a lot easier to get out from under than a guy with a full NMC and a bunch of bonuses. Army is well aware of that and specifically structured all of these contracts with that in mind.

Our focus is on trying to win in 2023, 2024, and 2025. Most (and maybe all) of the above group will be here for that window. We will rely on Neighbours/Bolduc to contribute on ELCs for some of that time, we're relying on Thomas to take the final step to being an undisputed top 20 NHL center, we're relying on Kyrou to be a PPG player and then we will supplement that group as we can. And then there will likely be major changes in 2025 with a cap that is exploding.

We have given guys bloated cap hit contracts beyond that time but structured them in a way that they can be moved. The state of our team in 2025 will dictate how many get moved, how desperate we are to move them, and whether we are looking to pay teams to take the full contract or looking to retain salary on them in exchange for futures assets.

When you exclude those considerations, our future looks bleak and I don't disagree too much with the ranking. But when you consider our real-world goals and the structure of our contracts, I'm pretty happy with our cap situation.

and the cap will be rising, making these contracts take up a smaller portion of our overall payroll, potentially putting their cap hit more in line with the lesser role they will likely be used in

 

[BlueDream]

Always liked the player, but it appears the Blues are going for a committee type of 4th line with 6-7 players battling in camp for a spot. While Larsson is better than Highmore/Frk/Angello/Leivo/Bitten/Alexandrov, I like the idea of a rotating fourth line, at least until Toropchenko returns.

I don't. We used a rotating 4th line all season last year and it didn't work, I'm not sure why people would want to do that again with a bunch of career AHLers and fringe guys.

We need to find an identity and a trio that works. I'm hoping some combination of Acciari, Toropchenko, Walker, and Kostin can do it.

 

[Frobbo]

Hockey fan here. It's seems many hockey fans are unhappy with their beat writers. I think its because there often isn't much "meat" to report on. They have to deliver content so they tend to speculate. Russo is considered to be one of the best but I find his work to be fanboy in a way that I can't put my finger on. Their just isn't as many strategies you can report on compared to,say, football. It makes for a lot of redundancy and fluff. The hard cap makes for a lot of tight lips on the part of management. Nature of the beast?