I hear that the Rangers have a big physical LD named Mikkola we might want. There is no smiley emoji that can relay my pure sarcasm with this post so I feel I need to just flat out say that this is a sarcastic joke and please god do not let this happen.
2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread
- Thread starter simon IC
- Start date
- Status
I hear that the Rangers have a big physical LD named Mikkola we might want. There is no smiley emoji that can relay my pure sarcasm with this post so I feel I need to just flat out say that this is a sarcastic joke and please god do not let this happen.
The Finns have let the Blues down lately. We need one to become a good player who sticks around.
Agreed. Do we want Hinze or would Heiskanen be better fit? I am thinking Heiskanen.
ScratchCatFever
Registered User
- Oct 14, 2018
- 1,755
- 3,012
I see no reason why Dallas wouldn't do Heisk for Krug straight up with no retention..
Bobby Orrtuzzo
Ya know
Scotty P with a nice pass for the US’ second goal today (had no idea which thread to put this in lol)
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,940
- 16,394
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,597
- 14,280
In reality, we would need to be comfortable with how the PP would look without him. Because even if he avoids the serious injury, I think we have to assume that he would still be limited to 60 games or so. Guys rarely go from multiple season enders to iron man streaks, so we'd need to be comfortable that the PP could function without him.
And frankly, I am. Faulk and Leddy have both been adequate PP QBs at points in their careers and most potential LD acquisitions have shown that level of adequacy in their careers too. In a world where we move Krug, add a guy like Chabot, and pencil Perunovich into the PP1 to start the year, I would be comfortable with the options behind him if/when he gets hurt.
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,718
- 5,320
World Championships QFs start at 8:20am Thursday morning.
US-Czech
Swiss-Germany
Canada- Finland
Sweden-Latvia
Semifinals on Saturday, Gold and Bronze games on Sunday.
US earned 20 out of a possible 21 pts in the preliminary round. Perunovich with 6 pts in 7 games so far.
US-Czech
Swiss-Germany
Canada- Finland
Sweden-Latvia
Semifinals on Saturday, Gold and Bronze games on Sunday.
US earned 20 out of a possible 21 pts in the preliminary round. Perunovich with 6 pts in 7 games so far.
stl76
No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
- Jul 2, 2015
- 9,479
- 9,068
Some of the games (maybe all?) are available on espn plus/hulu. Highlights are on youtube.
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,718
- 5,320
Reality Czech
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 5,868
- 9,468
US team smothers the Czechs 3-0. They've actually got a pretty good chance of winning it all this year. Perunovich looks solid. He made a nice defensive play to stop a breakaway. This Montreal prospect Lane Hutson looks very impressive. Small as hell but he's got some serious skill and speed.
LGB
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2019
- 2,257
- 2,356
If Perunovich can stay healthy I think he’ll outplay Krug next season
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,718
- 5,320
I read elsewhere that the US hasn’t won this event since 1960?? Not sure if that’s accurate but either way, they clearly don’t do well in this tourney usually. Would be great if they could pull it off.
Only caught part of the game but US looked good. They will play surprise Germany in the semifinals. After losing their first 3 games by 1 goal each, Germany won all of their other games and then beat Group B top seed Switzerland this morning. Germany only has 3 NHLers (Seider, Sturm and Peterka) but they’re playing an excellent tight checking team game from the little I’ve seen of them. They’ll be a tough out.
Agreed Perunovich has looked solid. And yes, Hutson is very very skilled. Would’ve been an easy top-10 pick last year if he was 2 inches taller. His brother Cole might be even more talented. He’s draft eligible next year but is also super small like his brother unfortunately.
Canada currently up 3-0 on Finland in the 3rd so they’re likely also moving on (game’s on NHL Network). Sweden-Latvia tied 1-1 heading into the 3rd.
stl76
No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
- Jul 2, 2015
- 9,479
- 9,068
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,597
- 14,280
Perunovich staying healthy for 60+ games would surprise me much more than a healthy Perunovich outplaying Krug.
I'm past the point of being willing to pencil him into a Plan A or even a Plan B for the medium term. He's about to turn 25 and he signed his first pro deal almost 3 years ago. In that time, he's played just 67 total pro games (regular season and playoffs) and had 3 substantial surgeries. The most recent was a direct result of his own inability to absorb routine NHL contact.
With that said, one of the reasons I want to see Krug moved is to open up a chance for him to win a job to play that #6 D, PP1QB role. It could very well be short lived and see us quickly having to use Faulk/Leddy/Parayko/acquisition on the two PP units, but that is a safety net I'm comfortable with. If he can stay healthy, I think Perunovich could really thrive playing 10-13 minutes a night at 5 on5 with extremely sheltered usage and a big, mean partner. He played on the right side a good amount in the NCAA, so maybe you can swap him back and forth to rotate Tucker and Bortz into the lineup.
I'm not betting much that he can stay healthy and play that role all season, but I'd love to see him get a shot at it. But there just aren't NHL minutes available to him with Krug in the lineup. He is already getting all of the bottom pair, offense-only minutes that the team has to give.
STL fan in MN
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2007
- 7,718
- 5,320
Unfortunately, I agree with this. Unfortunate that there’s not really an obvious role for him on the team at the moment and unfortunate we can’t really count on him to stay healthy.
But he absolutely has the ability. The talent is there.
I’ll note that he’s been the 2nd pairing RD the entire WC so far so clearly he’s comfortable playing his off-side.
I’m sure Krug’s a great person in real life but it’s unfortunate how many problems would be solved or at least greatly mitigated if Krug and his contract magically disappeared.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,597
- 14,280
I can never bring myself to watch the WC over the NHL playoffs, so I hadn't realized that. Good to know and definitely makes me feel even more comfortable about penciling him into the #6 role if Krug were gone.
Bortuzzo has given so much of his body to this organization, but I don't think you can count on him as an everyday player anymore. He just turned 34 and he's missed a good chunk of time in 4 of his last 5 seasons. For the sake of him surviving the season (and being at his best when in the lineup), I think it would be great to plan on him being a healthy scratch 20+ times next year. Being able to use Perunovich as the 3-RD on those nights would allow you to do that without rostering a 4th RHD.
I'm going to start sounding like a broken record on this point, but every option needs to be on the table to get Krug out of the organization, and that includes a buyout. These terms are pretty damn favorable given our current cap structure and the timeline for the cap to start rising once the escrow debt is paid off:
Only $458k against the cap for the next 2 years lets us pursue any and all LHD upgrades. Dealing with 6 years of a $2.5M hit beyond that sucks, but the cap should be above $90M by then (Friedman was talking about a projected $87-$88M cap for 2024/25) and we should be able to get out of a lot of other uncomfortable money by 2027. We're set to pay him $17M real dollars over the next 2 years before his NTC relaxes. Spreading out $20M over 8 years isn't all that bad in comparison.
I'd give him away for nothing. I'd trade a couple low-mid value futures for a team to take him. I'd give him away for nothing with a small amount of retention. All of those would be preferable to a buyout for me. But if none of that got it done, I think you have to go to ownership and try to sell them on a buyout. It opens up a ton of avenues to an improved defense that just don't exist otherwise.
I know Army (and/or this ownership group) dislikes buyouts and a $20M buyout is a very tough pill to swallow. However, I think that Army has a long enough track record of fixing his mistakes, getting great value on RFA deals, and making this organization money that he should get the benefit of a major mulligan such as this one.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but this is terrible idea. We would be getting cap space in years when we aren't going to contend anyway (and don't really need it) and then hamstringing ourselves when we expect our window to be open. Would make more sense to retain on trade if you are hell bent on getting rid of him. But smarter idea- if you can't essentially give him away- is to improve our defensive structure with new coaching and let him build up value so we can trade him without eating sh!t sandwich.
Last edited:
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,940
- 16,394
I still think Perunovich can have a decent future, but this also hits on something that I wouldn't be shocked with a draft pick. We do have an organization need for a PP QB defenseman in the prospect pool. We have a couple that might have some decent offensive upside, but I really wouldn't be shocked if we take a guy in this draft that fits more of that Krug/Perunovich role.
As you say, he's turning 25 prior to the start of the season, and while that's still youngish, even if he remains healthy, and is productive, we can't really say he's a guaranteed long-terms solution, even with those assumptions that we shouldn't even make.
If we move Krug, I'd expect something similar to the Schenn/Lehtera trade. A team that basically sells low on their player, and we pay a draft pick/prospect premium to move Krug. I think those trades are easier to make with forwards, so it might be difficult to pull off.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,597
- 14,280
We're just going to have to agree to disagree that we're not capable of contending over the next 4 years and are not in need of cap space in that timeframe. I don't buy that premise at all and I'd wager a ton that ownership and management don't either. I think it is absolutely possible to open a window back up before 2027/28 and I think there are plenty of avenues where we will need cap space over the next 4 years.
Improving the D structure is absolutely a major priority. If we acquire a top pair D man without a major roster casualty AND improve the D structure, then I think this team is very much contending before 2027/28.
Right or wrong, this organization isn't throwing in the towel for half a decade. I don't think we can approach our situation under the premise that we are trying to reopen a window for 2028.
That’s much easier said than done.
I don’t understand why some people seemingly think the Blues are going into rebuild mode over the next 3-4 years. If that was the case, we should be talking about trading WAY more players than Krug. Every veteran should basically be dumped in that case.
But I think those people are going to be surprised with Armstrong’s moves this Summer and next if they’re thinking this is a true rebuild.
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,622
- 6,465
Is it really going to kill us to eat a year or two off Krug's deal and find a different way to bring in that 1st LD by moving a different D contract? We're already playing a few one year filler guys at forward anyway in what figures to be a down year so why not just eat that 8.5 real dollars next year. Does that reduce a theoretical 3 year buyout?
Leddy for instance. Desirable contract at 4x3, he'd be an easy sell for a modest futures return to clear cap. Doug already has a nice futures stockpile that he can dip into as currency when hunting for a 1st LD but he doesn't have to rush this trade. He could wait until next year to do it and Krug may have regained some value over that same time frame and you've retained a valuable player in Leddy.
Next year is a throwaway, we don't need to see the team turn completely around. We just need to see some defensive structure back in their game and a better result next year through coaching changes and whatever personnel changes Doug can pull off.
Leddy for instance. Desirable contract at 4x3, he'd be an easy sell for a modest futures return to clear cap. Doug already has a nice futures stockpile that he can dip into as currency when hunting for a 1st LD but he doesn't have to rush this trade. He could wait until next year to do it and Krug may have regained some value over that same time frame and you've retained a valuable player in Leddy.
Next year is a throwaway, we don't need to see the team turn completely around. We just need to see some defensive structure back in their game and a better result next year through coaching changes and whatever personnel changes Doug can pull off.
Sure, but it ain’t this year. Even if you wait 2 years, which pretty sure we ain’t winning in, cap years hit for buyout would be much less. Buying him out now is bad idea.
Never said we are burning it all down. But next year or 2 we will be struggling to make playoffs. Might do it. But not legit contender. So we shouldn’t be making moves to hurt future for benefit of this year.
- Status
