2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[bleedblue1223]

Thanks! I tinkered around and got the exact data I was looking for.

Parayko's job is hard. I think we all know that, but I plugged in the variables to compare his deployment to the other D around the league with 900+ minutes played at 5 on 5 so far this year:

View attachment 650216

Holy cow is he getting difficult deployment. He has a lower O zone start rate than any of the 24 NHL D men with 900+ minutes at 5 on 5. The quality of the competition he's facing is 2nd best of that group. And the size of the circle shows that his total time on ice is in the top handful (4th in 5 on 5 TOI per game).

There isn't a D man in the league who is being asked to do what Parayko is asked to do.

Pelech plays a pretty similar role, but he's only played 33 games and 568 minutes this year, so he missed your cut off. He's one of the very few blue dots in the upper left section, but part of that could just be because the rest of our D suck, so his relative numbers are better. But ultimately, Parayko is still very good defensively.

 

[Majorityof1]

Thanks! I tinkered around and got the exact data I was looking for.

Parayko's job is hard. I think we all know that, but I plugged in the variables to compare his deployment to the other D around the league with 900+ minutes played at 5 on 5 so far this year:

View attachment 650216

Holy cow is he getting difficult deployment. He has a lower O zone start rate than any of the 24 NHL D men with 900+ minutes at 5 on 5. The quality of the competition he's facing is 2nd best of that group. And the size of the circle shows that his total time on ice is in the top handful (4th in 5 on 5 TOI per game).

There isn't a D man in the league who is being asked to do what Parayko is asked to do.

And this is why I don't want to get rid of him for peanuts. Parayko is a friggin workhorse. His numbers suck and he makes mistakes. But if we put any other D we have under his workload, it would be much, much uglier.

 

[Brian39]

Pelech plays a pretty similar role, but he's only played 33 games and 568 minutes this year, so he missed your cut off. He's one of the very few blue dots in the upper left section, but part of that could just be because the rest of our D suck, so his relative numbers are better. But ultimately, Parayko is still very good defensively.

His zone start rates and quality of competition are very similar, but he's getting about 2:45 a night less time at 5 on 5 than Parayko is. Still a very hard job, but Parayko is doing it for 3 extra shifts every night.

 

[bleedblue1223]

His zone start rates and quality of competition are very similar, but he's getting about 2:45 a night less time at 5 on 5 than Parayko is. Still a very hard job, but Parayko is doing it for 3 extra shifts every night.

Yeah, this is why I had the point of either not liking how the Blues use him or how coaches/Army are seemingly upset/surprised/disappointed with the results. I think Parayko has had better years, but his numbers are in his normal range, his possession numbers are actually better than the previous 2 seasons, despite more difficult deployment, and his offensive production is in his typical range, the low-end, but still normal.

I get public call outs and wanting more out of players and the better players should carry a bigger burden, but how he is a main target is beyond me.

 

[Brian39]

Yeah, this is why I had the point of either not liking how the Blues use him or how coaches/Army are seemingly upset/surprised/disappointed with the results. I think Parayko has had better years, but his numbers are in his normal range, his possession numbers are actually better than the previous 2 seasons, despite more difficult deployment, and his offensive production is in his typical range, the low-end, but still normal.

I get public call outs and wanting more out of players and the better players should carry a bigger burden, but how he is a main target is beyond me.

I think Berube (or whoever is in charge of D deployment) needs to give up on the current deployment. Parayko isn't good enough to effectively shutdown the opposition in his current deployment (or at least he isn't without another stud shutdown partner) and Krug/Faulk haven't been turning their extremely offensive usage into meaningful even strength production.

19 even strength points and a -10 in 52 games for Faulk and 11 even strength points with a -26 in 35 games for Krug isn't remotely good enough for a pair that is getting one of the most sheltered and offense-first deployment of any top 4 group in the NHL. Making Parayko shoulder almost all the top 4 defensive burden last year worked because Krug/Faulk got great results. Those results have vanished.

I think it is time to shake up the pairs and/or more evenly distribute the deployment and evaluate who delivers.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think Berube (or whoever is in charge of D deployment) needs to give up on the current deployment. Parayko isn't good enough to effectively shutdown the opposition in his current deployment (or at least he isn't without another stud shutdown partner) and Krug/Faulk haven't been turning their extremely offensive usage into meaningful even strength production.

19 even strength points and a -10 in 52 games for Faulk and 11 even strength points with a -26 in 35 games for Krug isn't remotely good enough for a pair that is getting one of the most sheltered and offense-first deployment of any top 4 group in the NHL. Making Parayko shoulder almost all the top 4 defensive burden last year worked because Krug/Faulk got great results. Those results have vanished.

I think it is time to shake up the pairs and/or more evenly distribute the deployment and evaluate who delivers.

Yep. Now I suppose the argument against that is that we'd be absolutely destroyed with Faulk/Krug in a more balanced deployment, but we shouldn't keep doing the same thing and hoping it works. And it's similar to how we use Binnington too. Even if it's just to get confidence back in Parayko, we can't keep running him into the ground because others can't carry their weight.

 

[joe galiba]

Thanks! I tinkered around and got the exact data I was looking for.

Parayko's job is hard. I think we all know that, but I plugged in the variables to compare his deployment to the other D around the league with 900+ minutes played at 5 on 5 so far this year:

View attachment 650216

Holy cow is he getting difficult deployment. He has a lower O zone start rate than any of the 24 NHL D men with 900+ minutes at 5 on 5. The quality of the competition he's facing is 2nd best of that group. And the size of the circle shows that his total time on ice is in the top handful (4th in 5 on 5 TOI per game).

There isn't a D man in the league who is being asked to do what Parayko is asked to do.

I think Parayko gets viewed worse than he is because of his usage
I think he makes a lot of good defensive plays, but the quantity of bad plays is a lot (which is what we notice), even though the bad plays might not be a lot as a percentage vs the good plays compared to other players

 

[Majorityof1]

I think Berube (or whoever is in charge of D deployment) needs to give up on the current deployment. Parayko isn't good enough to effectively shutdown the opposition in his current deployment (or at least he isn't without another stud shutdown partner) and Krug/Faulk haven't been turning their extremely offensive usage into meaningful even strength production.

19 even strength points and a -10 in 52 games for Faulk and 11 even strength points with a -26 in 35 games for Krug isn't remotely good enough for a pair that is getting one of the most sheltered and offense-first deployment of any top 4 group in the NHL. Making Parayko shoulder almost all the top 4 defensive burden last year worked because Krug/Faulk got great results. Those results have vanished.

I think it is time to shake up the pairs and/or more evenly distribute the deployment and evaluate who delivers.

I think we should just flip the deployment. Give Parayko's assignments to Krug. That should really get the tank train chugging along nicely.

 

[Brian39]

Yep. Now I suppose the argument against that is that we'd be absolutely destroyed with Faulk/Krug in a more balanced deployment, but we shouldn't keep doing the same thing and hoping it works. And it's similar to how we use Binnington too. Even if it's just to get confidence back in Parayko, we can't keep running him into the ground because others can't carry their weight.

So be it. We're getting run into the ground with the current deployment too. And frankly, losing games is a good outcome for the last 30 games of the season.

My main priority for these last 30 games is to get as much information as I can about which players could potentially be part of a medium-to-long term solution. I have enough information to tell me that a heavily sheltered Krug-Faulk pair isn't part of a medium-to-long term top 4 solution. And I have enough information to tell me that Parayko being asked to play the NHL's hardest shutdown role without a top-tier shutdown partner is also not part of the long term solution. But I think Faulk or Parayko might be part of a medium-to-long term solution and we might be stuck with Krug so we need to see start trying other roles for him than what we've been doing.

If we're moving one, we need to make damn sure that we move the right one. If we're moving two, we need to make damn sure that we keep the right one. I don't want to move Parayko for an okay return just to discover that his struggles were largely deployment related and he's suddenly back to looking like a #1/2 tweener in more traditional 1/2 tweener deployment.

I think we should just flip the deployment. Give Parayko's assignments to Krug. That should really get the tank train chugging along nicely.

I know you're speaking a bit tongue and cheek, but I want to see a couple weeks of a Krug-Parayko pairing that faces quality competition in all situations. See how each of them responds to roles that they aren't really getting at the moment and whether they can build any chemistry.

 

[Majorityof1]

I know you're speaking a bit tongue and cheek, but I want to see a couple weeks of a Krug-Parayko pairing that faces quality competition in all situations. See how each of them responds to roles that they aren't really getting at the moment and whether they can build any chemistry.

I don't care how Krug looks. I want him gone. I trade a him with a 1st and Neightbours for nohing if that is what it takes. Not being tongue and cheek at all about that. Krug is awful. If he can't be useful sheltered, how will he be useful against tough competition.

 

[bleedblue1223]

So be it. We're getting run into the ground with the current deployment too. And frankly, losing games is a good outcome for the last 30 games of the season.

My main priority for these last 30 games is to get as much information as I can about which players could potentially be part of a medium-to-long term solution. I have enough information to tell me that a heavily sheltered Krug-Faulk pair isn't part of a medium-to-long term top 4 solution. And I have enough information to tell me that Parayko being asked to play the NHL's hardest shutdown role without a top-tier shutdown partner is also not part of the long term solution. But I think Faulk or Parayko might be part of a medium-to-long term solution and we might be stuck with Krug so we need to see start trying other roles for him than what we've been doing.

If we're moving one, we need to make damn sure that we move the right one. If we're moving two, we need to make damn sure that we keep the right one. I don't want to move Parayko for an okay return just to discover that his struggles were largely deployment related and he's suddenly back to looking like a #1/2 tweener in more traditional 1/2 tweener deployment.


I know you're speaking a bit tongue and cheek, but I want to see a couple weeks of a Krug-Parayko pairing that faces quality competition in all situations. See how each of them responds to roles that they aren't really getting at the moment and whether they can build any chemistry.

Yeah, run Leddy/Faulk and Krug/Parayko with pretty balanced deployments and see what happens. I don't think it happens, but use this time to try something else out to get a head start on next season. Or throw Krug on the 3rd and try another guy with Parayko or Faulk with balanced deployments.

 

[MissouriMook]

...I want to see a couple weeks of a Krug-Parayko pairing that faces quality competition in all situations. See how each of them responds to roles that they aren't really getting at the moment and whether they can build any chemistry.

I wouldn't mind seeing them rotate a bit more and find out where Tucker might fit in as well. There is no harm in trying a Tucker-Parayko Leddy-Faulk Krug-Rosen deployment for a couple of games to see if we can get some better outcomes. And if we do get better outcomes, shut it down and bring it back next year.

 

[PocketNines]

To me it makes zero sense to trade a 1st round pick and a recent 1st round pick on track to become a 3d liner to dump a player when the result of all of that is not being any closer to competing. It totally, totally sucks having Krug on the team yes. 100% true. But if the Blues are going to suck for at least a couple years before getting better they cannot squander a 1st to fix a bad mistake, they need that 1st to develop in their system.

 

[Brian39]

I don't care how Krug looks. I want him gone. I trade a him with a 1st and Neightbours for nohing if that is what it takes. Not being tongue and cheek at all about that. Krug is awful. If he can't be useful sheltered, how will he be useful against tough competition.

I don't see the value in spending valuable assets to move his contract at the front end of a retool/rebuild. I'd rather experiment with deployment (or cutting down his minutes) over the next couple years to see if he can look like a more useful player when losing doesn't matter. See if you can make him look more (or as) appealing on-ice as he does right now and then try to trade him when there is less cap crunch and fewer years left on his deal.

His contract will never be harder for a team to take on than it is over the next 13 months. I'd give him away for free, but I'm not paying to get rid of him now when I'm fully content losing games for the next 18 months. See if we can up his value by cutting down minutes and/or switching up his partner.

But more importantly, I don't see any team being able/willing to take Krug's contract for the next 13 months even if we include Neighbours or a 1st. Teams just don't take on 5 year cap dumps. It cost the Flames a 1st rounder for the Habs to take 1 year of Sean Monahan. The Leafs had to trade down from 25th to 38th in order to get the Hawks to take on 2 years of Mrazek at $3.8M per.

Krug is almost certainly here for a couple years. We shouldn't just stop trying to find ways to use him because we don't like it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

To me it makes zero sense to trade a 1st round pick and a recent 1st round pick on track to become a 3d liner to dump a player when the result of all of that is not being any closer to competing. It totally, totally sucks having Krug on the team yes. 100% true. But if the Blues are going to suck for at least a couple years before getting better they cannot squander a 1st to fix a bad mistake, they need that 1st to develop in their system.

Yeah, I want Krug gone too, but no point in using assets to dump him, if we are still planning on being in transition for multiple seasons after this. Only point in paying assets to dump someone is to quickly use that cap space on an upgrade and improve your chances at contending. Since that isn't happening, just hope he improves, shelter him on the 3rd and see if you can eventually move him later.

 

[Majorityof1]

I don't see the value in spending valuable assets to move his contract at the front end of a retool/rebuild. I'd rather experiment with deployment (or cutting down his minutes) over the next couple years to see if he can look like a more useful player when losing doesn't matter. See if you can make him look more (or as) appealing on-ice as he does right now and then try to trade him when there is less cap crunch and fewer years left on his deal.

His contract will never be harder for a team to take on than it is over the next 13 months. I'd give him away for free, but I'm not paying to get rid of him now when I'm fully content losing games for the next 18 months. See if we can up his value by cutting down minutes and/or switching up his partner.

But more importantly, I don't see any team being able/willing to take Krug's contract for the next 13 months even if we include Neighbours or a 1st. Teams just don't take on 5 year cap dumps. It cost the Flames a 1st rounder for the Habs to take 1 year of Sean Monahan. The Leafs had to trade down from 25th to 38th in order to get the Hawks to take on 2 years of Mrazek at $3.8M per.

Krug is almost certainly here for a couple years. We shouldn't just stop trying to find ways to use him because we don't like it.

If we can't move him, we can't move him. But we should try. And we should not be above offering something for it. I don't really see half those assets as all that valuable. I don't think Neighbours is worth much at all. His ceiling is low end 3rd liner. I wouldn't trade our first, but if we get 3 from trading our UFAs, then I am not opposed to moving one.

Replacing Krug with a top 4 caliber all-situations D, fixing our defensive coaching and signing a high-end middle 6 forward should be our top priorities with the latter being last on the list. If we can do that, we can compete. We don't need a long rebuild, we need to do those 3 things. Krug and his salary are preventing us from fixing our defense. We cannot do all the rebalancing stuff you want to try because it will fail. Krug is awful. We don't have a D partner that can adaquately shelter him. Get him the f*** away from this team, sign Graves with his money, and then rebalance the pairs.

Buchnevich - Thomas -Kyrou
Saad - Killhorn - Schenn
Sundqvist - Haula - Bolduc
Blais - Acciari - Alexander

Graves - Parayko
LEddy - faulk
Rosen - Scandella

That is a workable lineup (capwise and signing wise) and it is a playoff lineup. There are other guys we could sign if we can't get those particular ones.

I think this season hit some people hard. The glass always half full types had their glasses totally shattered. They thought we were a contender going into the season and suddenly we need to trade everyone, burn it to the ground, salt the ground, hire a flock of priests to concectrate the earrth and wait 10 years for any chance of playoff hopes to grow again. That is an overreaction. We can be good again soon. And to do that we need Krug, MacTavish and Van Ryn GONE,

 

[Linkens Mastery]

If we can't move him, we can't move him. But we should try. And we should not be above offering something for it. I don't really see half those assets as all that valuable. I don't think Neighbours is worth much at all. His ceiling is low end 3rd liner. I wouldn't trade our first, but if we get 3 from trading our UFAs, then I am not opposed to moving one.

Replacing Krug with a top 4 caliber all-situations D, fixing our defensive coaching and signing a high-end middle 6 forward should be our top priorities with the latter being last on the list. If we can do that, we can compete. We don't need a long rebuild, we need to do those 3 things. Krug and his salary are preventing us from fixing our defense. We cannot do all the rebalancing stuff you want to try because it will fail. Krug is awful. We don't have a D partner that can adaquately shelter him. Get him the f*** away from this team, sign Graves with his money, and then rebalance the pairs.

Buchnevich - Thomas -Kyrou
Saad - Killhorn - Schenn
Sundqvist - Haula - Bolduc
Blais - Acciari - Alexander

Graves - Parayko
LEddy - faulk
Rosen - Scandella

That is a workable lineup (capwise and signing wise) and it is a playoff lineup. There are other guys we could sign if we can't get those particular ones.

I think this season hit some people hard. The glass always half full types had their glasses totally shattered. They thought we were a contender going into the season and suddenly we need to trade everyone, burn it to the ground, salt the ground, hire a flock of priests to concectrate the earrth and wait 10 years for any chance of playoff hopes to grow again. That is an overreaction. We can be good again soon. And to do that we need Krug, MacTavish and Van Ryn GONE,

I don't think we'll have to add much, if anything, to trade Krug. I honestly think we undervalue him because he's so different than what we have been use to seeing on the team. Now I'm not saying we are going to get value back either.

 

[Brian39]

The bolded phrases ... some next level propaganda ... eye popping disinformation here ...

It's not disinformation just because you don't like the guy.

"So far this season, Kyrou has stepped up to the challenge"

He's the team's leading goal scorer by an 8 goal margin and the leading point getter by a 5 point margin. He's playing at a 38 goal and 82 point pace. That is in fact really good. His AAV for next year currently puts him in line to be the 38th highest paid forward in the league. That might get pushed into the 40s when the market settles. His 23 goals put him in a 5 way tie for 30th in the NHL and his 49 points put him in a tie for 47th. Pretty much right in line with his upcoming AAV rank. His production is absolutely living up to the contract.

"Kyrou stands out amongst his peers around the League as well"

The next sentence fully supports that claim. Being 4th in goals and 7th in points among your draft class in points is in fact really good.

It then talks about how he is a streaky player and conditions the final bolded portion on whether he can turn those streaks into season-long production (which would turn him into a 100ish point player).

Ignoring context and actual production doesn't make selectively bolded sentences propaganda or disinformation.

 

[bleedblue1223]

And I can't remember exactly when the early season deployment disaster ended and they started using him correctly, but since November 14th, he has 44 points in 36 games, good for a 100 point pace and 43 goals. He's shooting 14.5% in that stretch, so absolutey sustainable. Over that stretch, he's in the top 20 for points.

Thomas/Kyrou absolutely form a legitimate offensive top line in the NHL. Hopefully a combo of Snuggerud, Bolduc, and our pick this year can round out the future top 6 and allow us to have 2 1st line caliber offensive lines.

 

[PocketNines]

It's not disinformation just because you don't like the guy.

"So far this season, Kyrou has stepped up to the challenge"

He's the team's leading goal scorer by an 8 goal margin and the leading point getter by a 5 point margin. He's playing at a 38 goal and 82 point pace. That is in fact really good. His AAV for next year currently puts him in line to be the 38th highest paid forward in the league. That might get pushed into the 40s when the market settles. His 23 goals put him in a 5 way tie for 30th in the NHL and his 49 points put him in a tie for 47th. Pretty much right in line with his upcoming AAV rank. His production is absolutely living up to the contract.

"Kyrou stands out amongst his peers around the League as well"

The next sentence fully supports that claim. Being 4th in goals and 7th in points among your draft class in points is in fact really good.

It then talks about how he is a streaky player and conditions the final bolded portion on whether he can turn those streaks into season-long production (which would turn him into a 100ish point player).

Ignoring context and actual production doesn't make selectively bolded sentences propaganda or disinformation.

To me it is propaganda to describe this player as having "stepped up" this year. He has been awful to watch, just awful. I concede his weaknesses are the ones that to me are unacceptable. Goals and points is a(n important) way to measure a player, but far from the only way a player can be measured against his peers, and thus to use only that measure while ignoring everything else to me is propaganda.

 

[Brian39]

If we can't move him, we can't move him. But we should try. And we should not be above offering something for it. I don't really see half those assets as all that valuable. I don't think Neighbours is worth much at all. His ceiling is low end 3rd liner. I wouldn't trade our first, but if we get 3 from trading our UFAs, then I am not opposed to moving one.

Replacing Krug with a top 4 caliber all-situations D, fixing our defensive coaching and signing a high-end middle 6 forward should be our top priorities with the latter being last on the list. If we can do that, we can compete. We don't need a long rebuild, we need to do those 3 things. Krug and his salary are preventing us from fixing our defense. We cannot do all the rebalancing stuff you want to try because it will fail. Krug is awful. We don't have a D partner that can adaquately shelter him. Get him the f*** away from this team, sign Graves with his money, and then rebalance the pairs.

Buchnevich - Thomas -Kyrou
Saad - Killhorn - Schenn
Sundqvist - Haula - Bolduc
Blais - Acciari - Alexander

Graves - Parayko
LEddy - faulk
Rosen - Scandella

That is a workable lineup (capwise and signing wise) and it is a playoff lineup. There are other guys we could sign if we can't get those particular ones.

I think this season hit some people hard. The glass always half full types had their glasses totally shattered. They thought we were a contender going into the season and suddenly we need to trade everyone, burn it to the ground, salt the ground, hire a flock of priests to concectrate the earrth and wait 10 years for any chance of playoff hopes to grow again. That is an overreaction. We can be good again soon. And to do that we need Krug, MacTavish and Van Ryn GONE,

I very much disagree about Neighbours' ceiling as a low end 3rd liner, but I also very much don't like that lineup.

I'm not a big Killorn fan and he is going to want a multi-year deal with a raise in AAV in order to leave Tampa. I'm not eager to pay $5M+ for his age 34, 35, and 36 seasons to land a guy like that in UFA. Swap Schenn in at center since Killorn hasn't taken draws in years and I don't buy that as a good 2nd line. Maybe adequate but not good. Killorn is a 60 point guy playing with Stamkos and Cirelli and he's getting older. I don't see him producing like that with Saad and Schenn.

That 3rd line looks well below average to me. I love Sunny as a 4th line guy who can slide up the lineup, but he's never hit 35 points, his career-best pace is 38 points (this year), and he hasn't stayed healthy for several years in a row. He's currently struggling to stay in Detroit's top 9. I like Haula as a 3C, but I don't think he's a 2 C caliber guy who could drive a line with Sunny and a 20 year old straight out of junior. He's in a good spot right now and I don't know why he would come here unless we clearly overpaid.

I don't think that is a playoff middle 6 and I'm very weary of giving out $9Mish AAV on term to bring in guys like Killorn/Haula.

I like Graves, but I don't think swapping out Krug and plugging him in fixes the entire D group. That lineup might be able to make the playoffs, but I wouldn't call it a lock and it certainly doesn't look like a contender to me. And I don't see a ton of room for growth with Killorn and Haula quickly becoming negative value contracts.

 

[Brian39]

To me it is propaganda to describe this player as having "stepped up" this year. He has been awful to watch, just awful. I concede his weaknesses are the ones that to me are unacceptable. Goals and points is a(n important) way to measure a player, but far from the only way a player can be measured against his peers, and thus to use only that measure while ignoring everything else to me is propaganda.

He's absolutely stepped up this year and you finding him awful to watch doesn't change that. He's taken on increased minutes, improved his goal scoring and his line with Thomas is the only reliable line the team has had.

He and ROR were a disaster together. Kyrou caught fire the instant the two were split up and ROR has continued to struggle.

Kyrou and Thomas together have a +4 goal differential at 5 on 5 and their corsi, fenwick, shots and scoring chance ratio are all above 50%. They are absolutely deployed in an offensive role, just like most top offensive lines. The team as a whole when neither of them are on the ice has a -13 goal differential at 5 on 5. Are the two of them perfect? Far from it. But this notion that the bad outweighs the good isn't accurate.

Since being untethered from a ROR pairing that didn't work at all, Kyrou has been playing at a 40 goal and 90+ point pace, leading the team in goals and points (both overall and at even strength) and his production has more than offset the goals going the other way. That's exactly how you step up to being paid like a top line winger.

 

[PocketNines]

He's absolutely stepped up this year and you finding him awful to watch doesn't change that. He's taken on increased minutes, improved his goal scoring and his line with Thomas is the only reliable line the team has had.

He and ROR were a disaster together. Kyrou caught fire the instant the two were split up and ROR has continued to struggle.

Kyrou and Thomas together have a +4 goal differential at 5 on 5 and their corsi, fenwick, shots and scoring chance ratio are all above 50%. They are absolutely deployed in an offensive role, just like most top offensive lines. The team as a whole when neither of them are on the ice has a -13 goal differential at 5 on 5. Are the two of them perfect? Far from it. But this notion that the bad outweighs the good isn't accurate.

Since being untethered from a ROR pairing that didn't work at all, Kyrou has been playing at a 40 goal and 90+ point pace, leading the team in goals and points (both overall and at even strength) and his production has more than offset the goals going the other way. That's exactly how you step up to being paid like a top line winger.

We are not going to agree on Kyrou, he is a very polarizing player. Throughout the time he's been apart from ROR he's been a minus player. You are framing this like ROR was the problem, dragging Kyrou down. It is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY unfair for anyone to argue that Kyrou's horrible start can be laid to ROR, that absolutely flies in the face of what we all saw out of Kyrou. Also, arbitrarily cutting off his worst parts (and he's still a minus player after that) is deliberately misshaping the info to make a case, that's why I called it what I did.

 

[Majorityof1]

I very much disagree about Neighbours' ceiling as a low end 3rd liner, but I also very much don't like that lineup.

I'm not a big Killorn fan and he is going to want a multi-year deal with a raise in AAV in order to leave Tampa. I'm not eager to pay $5M+ for his age 34, 35, and 36 seasons to land a guy like that in UFA. Swap Schenn in at center since Killorn hasn't taken draws in years and I don't buy that as a good 2nd line. Maybe adequate but not good. Killorn is a 60 point guy playing with Stamkos and Cirelli and he's getting older. I don't see him producing like that with Saad and Schenn.

That 3rd line looks well below average to me. I love Sunny as a 4th line guy who can slide up the lineup, but he's never hit 35 points, his career-best pace is 38 points (this year), and he hasn't stayed healthy for several years in a row. He's currently struggling to stay in Detroit's top 9. I like Haula as a 3C, but I don't think he's a 2 C caliber guy who could drive a line with Sunny and a 20 year old straight out of junior. He's in a good spot right now and I don't know why he would come here unless we clearly overpaid.

I don't think that is a playoff middle 6 and I'm very weary of giving out $9Mish AAV on term to bring in guys like Killorn/Haula.

I like Graves, but I don't think swapping out Krug and plugging him in fixes the entire D group. That lineup might be able to make the playoffs, but I wouldn't call it a lock and it certainly doesn't look like a contender to me. And I don't see a ton of room for growth with Killorn and Haula quickly becoming negative value contracts.

Well you'd be wrong about Neighbours. Don't feel too bad though. Your track record is better than anyone else here.

I picked those 2 (Killorn and Haula) as I think they will sign short term deals. I don't see anyone offering them term. If they won't sign for 2 years and we can't get anyone equivlanat on a short term deal,, the plan falls apart. I just don't want to be bad for years and we need middle 6 help. I don't think ownership, Armstrong and the general fanbase want to be bad for years either.

We can sign some older guys to keep us competitive while we wait for whoever we grab with these picks and Snugerud/Bolduc to develop. I am not over the moon with Saad - Schenn - Killorn. But they are all top 6 players. for the next 2 years It is a top 6 line. We'd need our top line to carry weight, sure. But they are all point per game players and hopefully have another gear. I think it could be an upper echelon top line with a lower end middle six that improves as our youth improves.

Arguing over the forwards is beside the point. My point was that with Krug, we have no viable path to the playoffs. Without Krug and replacing him with Graves, we do, even as soon as next year have at least a shot at the playoffs. If we want to sign lesser forwards and suck another year, go for it. But if we move Krug we at least have a D that is ready to be somewhat competitive. There is no guarantee we can move Krug or get someone even as good as Graves in 2 years. Krug could fall off a cliff (if there is even any more room to fall, dude is horrendously bad) and people would be less likely to take him even with less term. If we can move him now, even if the cost hurts, you have to do it.

 

[Memento]

This could - nay, will - be another successful season. A bunch of talented and hungry young players, a fair few wily vets, all of whom are eager for another shot at Lord Stanley's Cup.

Let's do this, guys!

LAWL. I'd say my post didn't age well in the slightest. It's okay, though; I can't be right all the time...or even most of the time.

Anyway, yeah, I'd be so excited to have four first round picks (if, in fact, we do deal O'Reilly and Barbashev for first round picks, as well as Acciari for - maybe - a second or third?) in this year's draft. Honestly, were I drafting, I'd probably use those picks instead of trading up. This is an incredibly deep and talented draft, and I'd definitely try to take advantage of that.