2021 Off Season Discussion Thread

[Brian39]

I will grant you that Petro + mediocre defenseman "can" be just as good or better than a Krug/Faulk pairing but I don't agree it would always be the case. Petro also had a lot of support in the form of Bouwmeester, Parayko, etc. so he wasn't always asked to be THE guy on defense. Last year Faulk and Krug had to shoulder a pretty heavy load, with only Scandella to take away some of the tougher defensive responsibilities when Parayko was out. I'm not downplaying how good Petro is, just saying that our overall team defense was better in previous years compared to last year. And like I said before, I bet Krug and Faulk would have looked a lot better in the #2 and #3 roles as was originally intended.

So while I don't disagree with what you're saying, it's also possible that Faulk and Krug can play better than they did last year. I can see both sides of the debate, but at least once both sides knew Petro wasn't coming back the Blues made a move to stay competitive. Neither Krug or Faulk will ever be at Petro's level, but getting two top pair defensemen for $13 million isn't the worst thing in the world. I know some might disagree with that statement, but I'm pretty confident saying Faulk and Krug are among the top 60 d-men in the league.

I still think we need to wait and see how Petro's game holds up over the course of his contract before making any definitive statements on whether it was a mistake or not, but hey it could be worse. At least we aren't paying someone like Nurse $9.5 million a year for the next 8 years! Or Karlsson, Trouba or someone like that.

I'm not sure I agree that Krug is top 60 in the league, but I don't fault anyone who believes that. I will say that I am confident that Krug/Faulk are each low enough on the list that a top pair with both of them is not going to be good enough to give you an above average top pairing. I think that they are best suited as #2 and #3 guys if you are trying to be a contender, which is why paying each as a low end #1 makes constructing a good blue line around them so damn difficult.

 

[Reality Czech]

I'm not sure I agree that Krug is top 60 in the league, but I don't fault anyone who believes that. I will say that I am confident that Krug/Faulk are each low enough on the list that a top pair with both of them is not going to be good enough to give you an above average top pairing. I think that they are best suited as #2 and #3 guys if you are trying to be a contender, which is why paying each as a low end #1 makes constructing a good blue line around them so damn difficult.

The reason I think Krug is top 60 is because in the past 5 years he's established himself as a top 10 offensive defenseman and can play 20+ minutes per night. Even this past year he was ranked #17 in scoring among d-man despite having a down year offensively. Of course he has his flaws defensively, but I don't think he's that bad, especially when you consider his size. I like Faulk's overall game more than Krug's, but since offense is such a premium in the NHL I'd say their market value is roughly the same. If I had to pick a number, I'd put them somewhere in the 30-50 range but of course others might see it differently. If Krug doesn't bounce back this year, then I might not say the same in the future though.

I guess time will tell if the Blues will be able to ice a good enough team and D corps with those two contracts on the books. I checked around the league and most contending teams spend roughly $25 million on defense and the Blues are right at that level. But if Parayko extends here, presumably for even more than Faulk and Krug, then we would be spending more money on our top 3 than most other teams around the league.

But landing a top d-man is not easy, so if we had not signed Krug or Faulk there is no guarantee we would have been able to acquire anyone better. Just glancing at the list of top d-men, they don't change teams very often or if they do they are very expensive via trade or free agency (guys like Hamilton, Jones, Ellis, OEL, Trouba, Petro, etc.). That's why I think Army jumped at the chance to lock down Krug and Faulk when the opportunity presented itself, because there is no guarantee a better option would have come along after that.

 

[Thallis]

I think as soon as these discussions break down into the "top 60" territory, they're already missing the point. While 64 may be the technical number of players that would qualify as top 2, the skill variance is way too high to actually consider most of the players there as capable of playing as a top 2 D in a Stanley Cup final. I, and I'm sure many others, would only consider 15 or so guys in the league as 1Ds, and probably a similar number as 2Ds. That said, I consider Parayko a 2D unless his year this season is similarly poor to last. Krug I think is borderline, and Faulk absolutely not.

 

[BlueMed]

I think as soon as these discussions break down into the "top 60" territory, they're already missing the point. While 64 may be the technical number of players that would qualify as top 2, the skill variance is way too high to actually consider most of the players there as capable of playing as a top 2 D in a Stanley Cup final. I, and I'm sure many others, would only consider 15 or so guys in the league as 1Ds, and probably a similar number as 2Ds. That said, I consider Parayko a 2D unless his year this season is similarly poor to last. Krug I think is borderline, and Faulk absolutely not.

Krug is borderline and Faulk absolutely not? Last time I checked, Faulk is noticeably better than Krug...

And whether you want to consider Parayko a top 15 D man is worthy of discussion, but before you start your ranking of defensemen, you have to wonder how other defensemen in the league would do with Parayko's responsibilities. He normally goes up against the other team's best forwards and does a remarkable job of shutting them down. Lots of defensemen put up points on the powerplay, and all of a sudden, they are considered "top d-men" despite looking pretty average at even strength. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of individuals in the hockey community focus on point totals when assessing defensemen, and I don't agree with it at all.

 

[Reality Czech]

I think as soon as these discussions break down into the "top 60" territory, they're already missing the point. While 64 may be the technical number of players that would qualify as top 2, the skill variance is way too high to actually consider most of the players there as capable of playing as a top 2 D in a Stanley Cup final. I, and I'm sure many others, would only consider 15 or so guys in the league as 1Ds, and probably a similar number as 2Ds. That said, I consider Parayko a 2D unless his year this season is similarly poor to last. Krug I think is borderline, and Faulk absolutely not.

That's why I was referring to them as "top pair" caliber d-men, but of course neither is an ideal 1D like Petro. However, part of my last post was that true 1D caliber players don't become available that often which is why Army grabbed two guys that are at least capable of playing top pair minutes and providing solid 2-way play. While I recognize these aren't the guys that some Blues fans want, I don't see them as overpaid based on their usage, production and the role they fill on the team. But I certainly agree with you that there is a big drop off from the top 15-20 elite defensemen and the 40th or 50th best.

Parayko certainly has a lot to prove this year, though the better he plays the more difficult it will be for the Blues to re-sign him. We have no idea what his intentions are, but this year might determine if he's really got 1D potential or if he is who he is at this point.

I disagree regarding Faulk, he really impressed me last year.

 

[Xerloris]

I still don't get everyones issue wth Faulk. He played great last season and he was not the reason Petro walked, get off the guys ass already.

 

[Reality Czech]

Jeremy Rutherford reporting that the Blues have interest in Chara, which shouldn't be a huge surprise. I know he's limited at his age, but I don't think we'd find better value for a league minimum contact and just having him around as a role model for our younger players would almost make it worth it alone IMO. That being said, Strick is reporting he would prefer to stay East so I guess it's just an outside possibility at this point. I honestly think it's a perfect, low-risk option to bolster the left side of our defense.



The question is, what move does Army make if Tarasenko is still on the roster when training camp starts to free up cap space?

 

[Meatball]

Krug-Parayko
Chara-Faulk
Walman-Bortuzzo

Not bad, IMO.

 

[Stealth JD]

Krug-Parayko
Chara-Faulk
Walman-Bortuzzo

Not bad, IMO.

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

Krug-Parayko
Chara-Faulk
Walman-Bortuzzo

Not bad, IMO.

I want Krug nowhere near 1st pairing, even with Parayko as his partner

and at Chara's age, I don't see him as anything but 3rd pairing

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

I still don't get everyones issue wth Faulk. He played great last season and he was not the reason Petro walked, get off the guys ass already.

Unfortunately he will always be “the guy we chose over Petro” to a large portion of this fan base.

He’s Eric Brewer 2.0 in that sense

 

[Em etah Eh]

Unfortunately he will always be “the guy we chose over Petro” to a large portion of this fan base.

He’s Eric Brewer 2.0 in that sense

Faulk was a contingency plan, and I don't associate him with Petro at all. We had the room to keep both. It's the Krug move that I will never get over. That just seemed like a UFA overpay that we don't usually see out of Army.

 

[Majorityof1]

Unfortunately he will always be “the guy we chose over Petro” to a large portion of this fan base.

He’s Eric Brewer 2.0 in that sense

People disliked him long before we lost Pietrangelo. How did they hate him because we chose him over Petro before we moved on from Petro?

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

Faulk was a contingency plan, and I don't associate him with Petro at all. We had the room to keep both. It's the Krug move that I will never get over. That just seemed like a UFA overpay that we don't usually see out of Army.

Maybe you don’t, but I’m sure some people do. And as for the Krug signing, yeah it’s probably an over signing, but would you have rather gone into the season with with our LHD being Scandella, Dunn, and Mikkola? Everyone crapped on Faulk his first year and now everyone loves him.

Look, I get it, I hate that Petro isn’t here either, and I’m not the biggest fan of how it all went down. But I can at the very least commend Army for at least trying to do something.

People disliked him long before we lost Pietrangelo. How did they hate him because we chose him over Petro before we moved on from Petro?

I’m not saying it’s a rational thought, but there were definitely posts here saying that trade signaled what was “the beginning of the end of Petro” here. Granted a lot of those were probably made after he’d left/the rumors of him not coming back grew louder, but still. And like mentioned above, everyone crapped on him but now loves him since he had a good year.

 

[stl76]

I like Faulk and Krug as player, but I hate their contracts. They are 2-3.5mill.$ overpaid.

Wait, WHAT??? You think Faulk and Krug are overpaid??!?! I would never know because you don't constantly bitch about it.

But at least I can beat dead horse when season progress and both of Krug and Faulk will be exposed badly. Full 82 game season doesn't leave anything what people can't defend, it shows our true level what is our D-core made of.

Oh please, you'll complain and nitpick any small mistake Faulk or Krug makes during the year regardless how well they actually play.

 

[BlueDream]

People disliked him long before we lost Pietrangelo. How did they hate him because we chose him over Petro before we moved on from Petro?

Who disliked him before that and why?

 

[Majorityof1]

Who disliked him before that and why?

I disliked him when he signed because I watched Carolina and thought he was overpaid for too long. Others agreed. After he played a dozen games for us, people started disliking him because he was god awful in his first season. Pietro was still with us. I didn't take screenshots or the names. But it was a pretty popular consensus in his first year. I highly doubt anyone who dislikes him now didn't dislike him in his first year when Pietro was still here.

Maybe you don’t, but I’m sure some people do. And as for the Krug signing, yeah it’s probably an over signing, but would you have rather gone into the season with with our LHD being Scandella, Dunn, and Mikkola? Everyone crapped on Faulk his first year and now everyone loves him.

Look, I get it, I hate that Petro isn’t here either, and I’m not the biggest fan of how it all went down. But I can at the very least commend Army for at least trying to do something.

I’m not saying it’s a rational thought, but there were definitely posts here saying that trade signaled what was “the beginning of the end of Petro” here. Granted a lot of those were probably made after he’d left/the rumors of him not coming back grew louder, but still. And like mentioned above, everyone crapped on him but now loves him since he had a good year.

I absolutely would have gone into the season without signing anyone. We would have the cash this off season to have been in on Hamilton who is a far better player than Krug. Some other good D signed too that are better for Krug. Some are cheaper. I'd rather have Hamonic, Savard or Martiniez. Who we could have signed this year is irrelevant though. The point is that not signing someone hurts us for 1 year, while signing Krug will hurt us for 7.

As for Faulk, definitely not everyone loves him. You yourself said he's the guy we chose over Petro to a large portion of the fanbase. How can he be "Eric Brewer 2.0" and "now everyone loves him"?

Besides, the "Great season" rhetoric is WAAAAAAAAAY overblown (I cannot possible put enough As in their for how overblown it is). He had maybe best season of our terrible defensive core. But he didn't have much competition with Parayko playing hurt for a lot of it. It wasn't some objectively great season, just a comparatively ok one. He started super hot, and a certain contingent of our fanbase who wanted to forget the guy we lost annointed him a superstar. They then refused to see he regressed back to the mean for most of the season. He played well enough to be a #3 guy on a true contender, which he is still overpaid for. And the problem with the contract isn't even the money but the term.

If he is amillion or two overpaid now, how bad will it be when he regresses. The contracts I mentioned above for guys I'd rather have the Krug were 4 years max for guys who are #2D or 2nd pairing caliber. You give 7 years to your #1, not your #2 and 3.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Who disliked him before that and why?

I think the general sentiment was the trade was fine, but a lot of people expressed displeasure with the contract he was shortly signed too. I'm not sure how much was 'hate' of Faulk, but I do recall Majority didn't like the acquisition. Most people thought he was "fine" but resigned to a bad contract. Then he struggled without a defined roll most of the season and gained lots of detractors.

 

[ezcreepin]

I disliked him when he signed because I watched Carolina and thought he was overpaid for too long. Others agreed. After he played a dozen games for us, people started disliking him because he was god awful in his first season. Pietro was still with us. I didn't take screenshots or the names. But it was a pretty popular consensus in his first year. I highly doubt anyone who dislikes him now didn't dislike him in his first year when Pietro was still here.



I absolutely would have gone into the season without signing anyone. We would have the cash this off season to have been in on Hamilton who is a far better player than Krug. Some other good D signed too that are better for Krug. Some are cheaper. I'd rather have Hamonic, Savard or Martiniez. Who we could have signed this year is irrelevant though. The point is that not signing someone hurts us for 1 year, while signing Krug will hurt us for 7.

As for Faulk, definitely not everyone loves him. You yourself said he's the guy we chose over Petro to a large portion of the fanbase. How can he be "Eric Brewer 2.0" and "now everyone loves him"?

Besides, the "Great season" rhetoric is WAAAAAAAAAY overblown (I cannot possible put enough As in their for how overblown it is). He had maybe best season of our terrible defensive core. But he didn't have much competition with Parayko playing hurt for a lot of it. It wasn't some objectively great season, just a comparatively ok one. He started super hot, and a certain contingent of our fanbase who wanted to forget the guy we lost annointed him a superstar. They then refused to see he regressed back to the mean for most of the season. He played well enough to be a #3 guy on a true contender, which he is still overpaid for. And the problem with the contract isn't even the money but the term.

If he is amillion or two overpaid now, how bad will it be when he regresses. The contracts I mentioned above for guys I'd rather have the Krug were 4 years max for guys who are #2D or 2nd pairing caliber. You give 7 years to your #1, not your #2 and 3.

Now YOU'RE the one underplaying how well he did. Was he a bonafide #1 defenseman? No, and I don't think anyone would argue he should be playing 1st line minutes on a healthy team, but to say his accomplishments were overblown isn't giving him credit. The Blues were a minus team with the conclusion of the season, yet he was stuck starting the majority in the defensive zone, had bad corsi metrics, and still came out a +11. His advanced stats say he was on the ice for 71 of the Blues goals, while 76 for goals against, which tells us he was part of a bad penalty kill. Whether that's on him is a different question entirely, but I'm not expecting him to carry a penalty kill on his own. 5v5, Faulk was arguably our best defenseman and still managed 7 goals, 25 points with a good chunk of blocks and hits (87 and 127 respectively). If your argument against Faulk is that he was bad on the pk, then I could probably be swayed in that direction with some evidence, but the dude did all he could 5v5 and that's honestly all I care about long term.

 

[BlueDream]

I think the general sentiment was the trade was fine, but a lot of people expressed displeasure with the contract he was shortly signed too. I'm not sure how much was 'hate' of Faulk, but I do recall Majority didn't like the acquisition. Most people thought he was "fine" but resigned to a bad contract. Then he struggled without a defined roll most of the season and gained lots of detractors.

Yeah I made that post under the assumption he was talking about Krug for some reason, so my mistake.

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

I disliked him when he signed because I watched Carolina and thought he was overpaid for too long. Others agreed. After he played a dozen games for us, people started disliking him because he was god awful in his first season. Pietro was still with us. I didn't take screenshots or the names. But it was a pretty popular consensus in his first year. I highly doubt anyone who dislikes him now didn't dislike him in his first year when Pietro was still here.



I absolutely would have gone into the season without signing anyone. We would have the cash this off season to have been in on Hamilton who is a far better player than Krug. Some other good D signed too that are better for Krug. Some are cheaper. I'd rather have Hamonic, Savard or Martiniez. Who we could have signed this year is irrelevant though. The point is that not signing someone hurts us for 1 year, while signing Krug will hurt us for 7.

As for Faulk, definitely not everyone loves him. You yourself said he's the guy we chose over Petro to a large portion of the fanbase. How can he be "Eric Brewer 2.0" and "now everyone loves him"?

Besides, the "Great season" rhetoric is WAAAAAAAAAY overblown (I cannot possible put enough As in their for how overblown it is). He had maybe best season of our terrible defensive core. But he didn't have much competition with Parayko playing hurt for a lot of it. It wasn't some objectively great season, just a comparatively ok one. He started super hot, and a certain contingent of our fanbase who wanted to forget the guy we lost annointed him a superstar. They then refused to see he regressed back to the mean for most of the season. He played well enough to be a #3 guy on a true contender, which he is still overpaid for. And the problem with the contract isn't even the money but the term.

If he is amillion or two overpaid now, how bad will it be when he regresses. The contracts I mentioned above for guys I'd rather have the Krug were 4 years max for guys who are #2D or 2nd pairing caliber. You give 7 years to your #1, not your #2 and 3.

In hindsight yeah, maybe we would’ve been better off waiting till this year, but management (for better or worse) still viewed us as in our cup window, and they’re not gonna wait a year on the “hope” that they can sign someone else later. They went and got what was viewed as the second best UFA Dman after talks with first best dman broke down. I’ve said before, is it an overpay? Yeah, but that’s what it takes to land a top FA.

As for Faulk, I’ll concede that saying he’s Brewer 2.0 and that “everyone loves him” might have been slight exaggerations, but his second year really wasn’t THAT bad. His first season, yes he was dog shit. But maybe I’m wrong (decent chance I am). In a perfect world he’s a 2nd pairing RHD, but as we all know last was anything but perfect.

And this isn’t directed straight at you majority, but I just want it to be known that I try to not to be a huge “Army can’t do wrong” guy. He absolutely has made bad moves, but he also has made some pretty good ones, so to me he at least gets a little slack. I loved Petro, and I’d take him over both Faulk and Krug any day of the week (although a pairing of Petro and Krug would intrigue me).

 

[Majorityof1]

Now YOU'RE the one underplaying how well he did. Was he a bonafide #1 defenseman? No, and I don't think anyone would argue he should be playing 1st line minutes on a healthy team, but to say his accomplishments were overblown isn't giving him credit. The Blues were a minus team with the conclusion of the season, yet he was stuck starting the majority in the defensive zone, had bad corsi metrics, and still came out a +11. His advanced stats say he was on the ice for 71 of the Blues goals, while 76 for goals against, which tells us he was part of a bad penalty kill. Whether that's on him is a different question entirely, but I'm not expecting him to carry a penalty kill on his own. 5v5, Faulk was arguably our best defenseman and still managed 7 goals, 25 points with a good chunk of blocks and hits (87 and 127 respectively). If your argument against Faulk is that he was bad on the pk, then I could probably be swayed in that direction with some evidence, but the dude did all he could 5v5 and that's honestly all I care about long term.

Part of my problem with him last year was how afwul he was on the PK. He made a lot of bonehead errors on the PK. He was the 19th worst D in the league with GA/60 on the PK amongst all D with 40 minutes of PK TOI (156 eligible D). Several of those ahead of him were on Philly and NJ, which has really bad goaltending this year. He was the 12th worst D not on NJ or Philly.

When you are one of the top 30 most paid players at your position, you have to contribute somewhere on special teams. He barely played on the PP and he was awful on the PK. I guess he got PK time so he contributed, but only because we had nobody else. He was the 3rd D option on the PP, so he only got to play if Krug or Dunn was hurt, or when Dunn was in Berube's dog house.

5 on 5 he was ok. I'd even say I was mildly impressed for him. But what he did is still overblown. Case in point, you using +/-. Its just a bad stat. His 5v5 xGF% was less than 50%, so he should have been a negative +/-. His above 100% PDO helped him out. I think the goalies just bailed him out though since his HD chance #s are pretty bad. He didn't have a high PDO because he was getting better chances than he was giving up.

His xgf% was right in line with the team's at 46%, so he did ever so slightly better than the team average. He was deployed a little more defensively (not much though), and probably a little more against top competition while Parayko was hurt. But the team was bad, 7th worst team in xGF%. If he played like he was a top pairing D on a good team wouldn't he outpace the 7th worst team in the league, even with a little extra D time and facing a little better comp? As the 24th highest paid D in the league, we need him to play like a top pairing D on a contender. Not a slightly better than average D on a bottom dweller. When people are saying he played better than Pietrangelo ever did/would have done for us....yeah, his season was overblown.

 

[Majorityof1]

In hindsight yeah, maybe we would’ve been better off waiting till this year, but management (for better or worse) still viewed us as in our cup window, and they’re not gonna wait a year on the “hope” that they can sign someone else later. They went and got what was viewed as the second best UFA Dman after talks with first best dman broke down. I’ve said before, is it an overpay? Yeah, but that’s what it takes to land a top FA.

As for Faulk, I’ll concede that saying he’s Brewer 2.0 and that “everyone loves him” might have been slight exaggerations, but his second year really wasn’t THAT bad. His first season, yes he was dog shit. But maybe I’m wrong (decent chance I am). In a perfect world he’s a 2nd pairing RHD, but as we all know last was anything but perfect.

And this isn’t directed straight at you majority, but I just want it to be known that I try to not to be a huge “Army can’t do wrong” guy. He absolutely has made bad moves, but he also has made some pretty good ones, so to me he at least gets a little slack. I loved Petro, and I’d take him over both Faulk and Krug any day of the week (although a pairing of Petro and Krug would intrigue me).

I agree. His season wasn't that bad. Given the team, it was pretty good. But he wasn't one of the top 24 best D men in the league last year. Not even close. He was paid like it though.

I agree sometime you need to overpay players. I just want to overpay my top end talent, not my middle of the pack guys. Not to beat a dead horse, but you overpay a guy like Pietrangelo or O'Reilly, not guys like Faulk and Krug. I have a fundamental disagreement with Army's philosophy there. I try not to be a Army is always wrong guy either. I'll admit, he has made some absolutely fantastic moves. But I think his bunch of rich guys with no RICH guys and a bunch of cheap vets philosophy limits us.

We did win a cup, but I think that required an inordinate amount of luck starting with having the season saved by a goalie nobody in the FO saw as playing an NHL game at the start of the year. I don't think we have a miracle waiting in our AHL squad right now. I think we are a lot closer to a rebuild than another cup.

 

[Celtic Note]

Faulk had a good season relative to his standards (he could stand to generate more offense) and he certainly outperformed his prior year. If he plays like he did last year, his contract is “meh” temporarily instead of terrible immediately. I wouldn’t mind him as a 3rd defenseman, but as #2 on a supposed contender? I think not.

His salary might actually look better as soon as next year if bad contracts to defenseman continue. But, I cannot imagine that contract ever looks good.

 

[LGB]

Part of my problem with him last year was how afwul he was on the PK. He made a lot of bonehead errors on the PK. He was the 19th worst D in the league with GA/60 on the PK amongst all D with 40 minutes of PK TOI (156 eligible D).

GA/60 on the PK is highly dependent on luck.