2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[Spektre]

It was interesting that Armstrong was quoted telling (was it Heim?) that the team was rebuilding right now. I don’t recall the exact quote and don’t scrutinize the word ‘rebuild’ too specifically.

The point is that he acknowledged the Blues probably won’t be good this year. I think they could be worse than last season. I think the national media are more likely to be correct here. Need to get these young players out there so there is something compelling to watch if the team isn’t competitive.


If they can acquire a couple more 1sts somehow, finish on the bottom 5, and move Krug, that would be a successful season in really moving the rebuild/retool along.

That’s what I have been hoping for but my fear is they’ll finish about 14th worst and not trade for futures at the deadline.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

That’s what I have been hoping for but my fear is they’ll finish about 14th worst and not trade for futures at the deadline.

I think Vrana and Kapanen were moves designed to create opportunities to trade them for young assets. There is probably another vet we wouldn’t expect that would be moved too. But with the cap currently, it will be very hard to move salary, even at the deadline.

I guess I hope the Blues stay competitive for a couple months to give us something fun to watch, then fall away and become clear sellers. Focus on developing youth and acquiring more if it. And reveal what Armstrong’s plan for this defense is.

 

[Spektre]

I think Vrana and Kapanen were moves designed to create opportunities to trade them for young assets. There is probably another vet we wouldn’t expect that would be moved too. But with the cap currently, it will be very hard to move salary, even at the deadline.

I guess I hope the Blues stay competitive for a couple months to give us something fun to watch, then fall away and become clear sellers. Focus on developing youth and acquiring more if it. And reveal what Armstrong’s plan for this defense is.

I have said before that we already saw Army’s plan for the defense. He was willing to move Krug for another 8 year contract. That’s scary to me but whatever. All I can do is watch, wait, and see.

 

[EXTRAS]

How did Matt Kessel look at camp?

 

[BlueDream]

How did Matt Kessel look at camp?

I like him, he’s been noticeably physical and aggressive from what I’ve seen. He’ll be in the AHL but he will be one of our top callup options if injuries hit. Think he could be a solid 3rd pair guy.

 

[Celtic Note]

Put me in the camp that says we fall between 8th and 15th worst.

Not exactly a bold prediction

 

[Beauterham]

Fagemo picked up by the Preds. Wish we'd put in a claim on him.

If another decent good young player (preferably a forward) hits waivers I personally wouldn't mind claiming him. We're rebuilding/retooling anyway and picking up a free asset who still has the potential to grow into a good rosterplayer (or we could move for a pick) is interesting, like Tolvanen or Fagemo. I'd very much prefer a guy like that on our roster than a MacEachern or Walker. At the moment the Sens waived Sokolov and Bernard-Docker, which could be 'options', however I'm certain a better young player will become available at some point.

 

[Brian39]

That’s what I have been hoping for but my fear is they’ll finish about 14th worst and not trade for futures at the deadline.

The Blues have missed the playoffs just twice under Stillman's ownership group and were sellers each time. It was a pretty easy decision given our place in the standings last year, but in 2017/18 we were 16th in the NHL and just 1 point out of a playoff spot at the trade deadline. We were still sellers. The year before, we were sellers despite sitting in a Wild Card spot at the deadline (and ultimately made the playoffs).

There is zero precedent from the current management or ownership groups for the notion that we would decline to sell for futures if we are sitting at or below the playoff cutline. If anything, this ownership and management group are the NHL's lead example of being willing to chop the legs out from under a bubble team in favor of building for the future.

This organization seems unwilling to announce a rebuild and/or build a roster that has no chance of being anything but a bottom 5 team. That might be an ideological decision to avoid a losing culture or a belief that the best way to build up rookies is to force them to take jobs instead of throwing them to the wolves in roles that they aren't ready for. It might also simply be an unwillingness to take the financial hit that comes with people having no incentive to come to your games.

But they have shown that whatever the reason, the won't cling to it by the trade deadline at the expense of getting futures assets. We're going to have to be markedly better than 14th worst to avoid selling for futures at the deadline.

 

[BlueDream]

Fagemo picked up by the Preds. Wish we'd put in a claim on him.

If another decent good young player (preferably a forward) hits waivers I personally wouldn't mind claiming him. We're rebuilding/retooling anyway and picking up a free asset who still has the potential to grow into a good rosterplayer (or we could move for a pick) is interesting, like Tolvanen or Fagemo. I'd very much prefer a guy like that on our roster than a MacEachern or Walker. At the moment the Sens waived Sokolov and Bernard-Docker, which could be 'options', however I'm certain a better young player will become available at some point.

Yeah, I don’t disagree. But I feel like we’re at the point where we have too much mediocre depth, where we don’t even have room to take a chance on guys like that currently. Tolvanen is someone we missed out on last season when he hit the wire, because we had dead weight on the roster.

This is why we should start being aggressive about attaching an asset to Krug in order to move him.

A guy like Alexandrov for example should be trade bait in a scenario like that. We can find decent potential young players on waivers every training camp to replace him. I’d like to see the Blues give up someone like him to a team if it helps us move a bad contract. Worth trying at least.

 

[Xerloris]

This is why we should start being aggressive about attaching an asset to Krug in order to move him.

I don't see how adding an asset to Krug will make him change his mind about waiving his NTC.

 

[Majorityof1]

Yeah, I don’t disagree. But I feel like we’re at the point where we have too much mediocre depth, where we don’t even have room to take a chance on guys like that currently. Tolvanen is someone we missed out on last season when he hit the wire, because we had dead weight on the roster.

This is why we should start being aggressive about attaching an asset to Krug in order to move him.

A guy like Alexandrov for example should be trade bait in a scenario like that. We can find decent potential young players on waivers every training camp to replace him. I’d like to see the Blues give up someone like him to a team if it helps us move a bad contract. Worth trying at least.

If a guy like Alexandrov is so replaceable, why would a team take on Krug to pick him up? Why wouldn't they just take one of the young players on waivers themselves and avoid Krug (who has a nice he is willing to enforce, narrowing the pool of teams).

 

[BlueDream]

If a guy like Alexandrov is so replaceable, why would a team take on Krug to pick him up? Why wouldn't they just take one of the young players on waivers themselves and avoid Krug (who has a nice he is willing to enforce, narrowing the pool of teams).

Alexandrov is just an example, it doesn’t have to be him necessarily. Could be another (better) prospect if he doesn’t move the needle. But I’d start with someone of that caliber in negotiations.

And a lot of the good teams aren’t going to be in position for a lot of those players to even make it to them on waivers.

Teams attach assets to players with bad contracts all the time. But if you have a better idea feel free to throw it out there instead of playing contrarian on everything.

I don't see how adding an asset to Krug will make him change his mind about waiving his NTC.

So since he refused to waive his NTC once we should give up? No, keep trying until he knows he shouldn’t be here and waives it. I don’t care how long it takes but there’s no way Krug is lasting in St. Louis for 4 more years.

 

[Brian39]

I'm not at all bothered by the fact that we passed on Fagemo.

I haven't seen anything to tell me that he has more upside or current NHL readiness than Alexandrov. I also haven't seen anything to tell me that he is more capable than Torpo of playing a 4th line NHL role right now and I'd put my money on Torpo to be a better 4th line grinder with pop long-term. He certainly hasn't demonstrated that he should get a look over Neighbours. I like Blais much more than him at the moment and I like the 1 year $1M full-season audition we're giving Blais.

Even ignoring the short-term bottom 6 guys fighting for spots (Sunny, Mac, Walker), I don't see an avenue for Fagemo to provide a better short-or-medium-term bet than the guys already in our system. I don't want to send Neighbours to the AHL to make room for Fagemo and I don't want to risk any of Alexandrov, Torpo, or Blais to waivers to make room for Fagemo.

 

[Xerloris]

Alexandrov is just an example, it doesn’t have to be him necessarily. Could be another (better) prospect if he doesn’t move the needle. But I’d start with someone of that caliber in negotiations.

And a lot of the good teams aren’t going to be in position for a lot of those players to even make it to them on waivers.

Teams attach assets to players with bad contracts all the time. But if you have a better idea feel free to throw it out there instead of playing contrarian on everything.


So since he refused to waive his NTC once we should give up? No, keep trying until he knows he shouldn’t be here and waives it. I don’t care how long it takes but there’s no way Krug is lasting in St. Louis for 4 more years.

Doug struck a deal for him once without adding assets. I'm sure he can do it again. You just want us to rip ourselves off because you want something to happen now. It does not matter how many assets you add, they wont make Krug change his mind. The dude didn't say he hates Philly, he said he wants to be HERE. Goodluck making him waive if he really wants to be here.

 

[BlueDream]

Doug struck a deal for him once without adding assets. I'm sure he can do it again. You just want us to rip ourselves off because you want something to happen now. It does not matter how many assets you add, they wont make Krug change his mind. The dude didn't say he hates Philly, he said he wants to be HERE. Goodluck making him waive if he really wants to be here.

For all of Armstrong’s faults, at least he isn’t a pushover like you would be. “Oh okay, Torey said no. We won’t try trading him again for 4 years now!”

Not how it works. Teams can and will make it uncomfortable for a player until they waive, this is pro sports.

And even if not that, you will never convince me that Torey Krug loves St. Louis so much that he won’t waive his NTC for a single other team. That is so completely unrealistic.

 

[Brian39]

I don't see how adding an asset to Krug will make him change his mind about waiving his NTC.

I don't know what to tell you if you truly believe that there is no chance of Krug waiving his NTC. That is just willfully ignoring the reality of pro sports in 2023. Here are some of the several reasons Krug may decide to waive his NTC:

1: Perunovich passes him on the depth chart and takes most of his minutes. He is suddenly facing the reality of healthy scratches and/or playing 12-14 minutes a night for the rest of his career.

2: We come to him with a potential trade to a destination that is more desirable than Philly. The Flayers were in an unambiguous long-term rebuild under a hard ass coach who is notorious for benching offense-first guys who aren't getting it done defensively. From an on-ice perspective, Philly in the summer of 2023 was one of the least appealing landing spots for a guy like Krug.

3: The team informs Krug that he will be placed on waivers if he doesn't waive his NTC. He then has to make a decision about whether the risk of being claimed by a basement dweller or even being sent to the AHL outweighs the reward of trying to leverage his NTC to stay in St. Louis.

4: The team informs him that the plan is to buy him out this summer if he isn't traded by the draft. That would cost him $7M real dollars. He'd have a chance to make up some of those losses as a UFA, but if it gets to the point of a buyout, it probably means that his play/usage in 2023/24 wasn't good enough for a 33 year old Krug to make up all those earnings. Additionally, he would almost certainly see a dip in short-term earnings in 2024/25 when he is set to make $8.5M. There are real financial incentives for him to avoid a buyout.

Krug wants to be here more than he wanted to be in Philly this summer. Taking his comments as truth and not PR means that he wants to be here more than anywhere. But that comes with the caveat that he wants to be here as a contributing member of the St. Louis Blues. He did not say that he wants to be in the press box more than playing in the NHL elsewhere. He did not say that he wants to be in the AHL as a member of the Blues organization more than he wants to play in the NHL elsewhere.

There are tons of avenues for him to decide to waive his NTC and acting like it is an outright bar on any potential trade talk is silly.

 

[Xerloris]

I don't know what to tell you if you truly believe that there is no chance of Krug waiving his NTC. That is just willfully ignoring the reality of pro sports in 2023. Here are some of the several reasons Krug may decide to waive his NTC:

1: Perunovich passes him on the depth chart and takes most of his minutes. He is suddenly facing the reality of healthy scratches and/or playing 12-14 minutes a night for the rest of his career.

2: We come to him with a potential trade to a destination that is more desirable than Philly. The Flayers were in an unambiguous long-term rebuild under a hard ass coach who is notorious for benching offense-first guys who aren't getting it done defensively. From an on-ice perspective, Philly in the summer of 2023 was one of the least appealing landing spots for a guy like Krug.

3: The team informs Krug that he will be placed on waivers if he doesn't waive his NTC. He then has to make a decision about whether the risk of being claimed by a basement dweller or even being sent to the AHL outweighs the reward of trying to leverage his NTC to stay in St. Louis.

4: The team informs him that the plan is to buy him out this summer if he isn't traded by the draft. That would cost him $7M real dollars. He'd have a chance to make up some of those losses as a UFA, but if it gets to the point of a buyout, it probably means that his play/usage in 2023/24 wasn't good enough for a 33 year old Krug to make up all those earnings. Additionally, he would almost certainly see a dip in short-term earnings in 2024/25 when he is set to make $8.5M. There are real financial incentives for him to avoid a buyout.

Krug wants to be here more than he wanted to be in Philly this summer. Taking his comments as truth and not PR means that he wants to be here more than anywhere. But that comes with the caveat that he wants to be here as a contributing member of the St. Louis Blues. He did not say that he wants to be in the press box more than playing in the NHL elsewhere. He did not say that he wants to be in the AHL as a member of the Blues organization more than he wants to play in the NHL elsewhere.

There are tons of avenues for him to decide to waive his NTC and acting like it is an outright bar on any potential trade talk is silly.

I was commenting that adding assets to Krug will not make him waive his NTC. That is 100% true, unless we somehow have his best friend and we send them together. Perhaps then adding assets would help change Krugs mind.

 

[Xerloris]

For all of Armstrong’s faults, at least he isn’t a pushover like you would be. “Oh okay, Torey said no. We won’t try trading him again for 4 years now!”

Not how it works. Teams can and will make it uncomfortable for a player until they waive, this is pro sports.

And even if not that, you will never convince me that Torey Krug loves St. Louis so much that he won’t waive his NTC for a single other team. That is so completely unrealistic.

Listen to yourself. DO you really think offering the other team more shit is going to convince Krug to waive his NTC? You have to convince Krug first, then you can offer more assets if you need to move him.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

With Krug, it's going to come down to playing time. The only way I can see him waiving his NTC is if he's spending half the games in the pressbox. But at that point you're hurting your chances of finding a dance partner in a deal. We have a logjam of D contracts and young players starting to emerge. Eat into his playing time and he may reconsider but then at that point who wants a $6M player who isn't skilled enough to get into the lineup every day?

Later down the line I could see him waiving in a TDL move to a contender that would give him what could be his last chance to win the Cup that he's still seeking after we stole his prior opportunity from under his nose.

It's not a great situation and at this point I think the best we can hope for is that he performs well for us over the next couple seasons while things shake out.

 

[Brian39]

I was commenting that adding assets to Krug will not make him waive his NTC. That is 100% true, unless we somehow have his best friend and we send them together. Perhaps then adding assets would help change Krugs mind.

Listen to yourself. DO you really think offering the other team more shit is going to convince Krug to waive his NTC? You have to convince Krug first, then you can offer more assets if you need to move him.

No one is suggesting that the added asset(s) be used to convince Krug to waive his NTC. The extra asset(s) is to convince more teams to get into the marketplace to acquire Krug.

You absolutely do not have to convince Krug first. Krug is not going to blanket-waive his NTC. The overwhelming way teams handle requests to waive NTCs comes in one of two forms. One way is to get the framework of a trade done with a specific team and then go to the player and ask him to waive for that specific team. That is what Army says he does and it is what he did with Krug and Philly. The other way is to ask a player for a list of destinations that they would be willing to waive for. We do not know whether this has occurred. Krug specifically avoided providing a definitive answer about whether he would consider waiving his NTC for another team and instead talked about how bad he wants to win a Cup.

You absolutely do not have to convince Krug to waive his NTC before trying to trade him and including assets is absolutely relevant to whether Army can put together a deal to then take to Krug. Suggesting otherwise is 100% not true.

 

[Brian39]

With Krug, it's going to come down to playing time. The only way I can see him waiving his NTC is if he's spending half the games in the pressbox. But at that point you're hurting your chances of finding a dance partner in a deal. We have a logjam of D contracts and young players starting to emerge. Eat into his playing time and he may reconsider but then at that point who wants a $6M player who isn't skilled enough to get into the lineup every day?

Later down the line I could see him waiving in a TDL move to a contender that would give him what could be his last chance to win the Cup that he's still seeking after we stole his prior opportunity from under his nose.

It's not a great situation and at this point I think the best we can hope for is that he performs well for us over the next couple seasons while things shake out.

I think playing time could be the thing that convinces him to waive a NTC. But it is definitely not the only thing. When asked about potentially waiving his NTC in the future, Krug talked about how important winning was to him:

“I want to win hockey games,” Krug said. “I’ve lost in two Stanley Cup Finals, and there’s not many days that I go through and I don’t think about that. I’m here to win. I want to win in the future. That’s my job right now, and I think we have the group to do that. Like I said, if you don’t do your job, then people want change, whether it’s your boss or it’s fans. That’s part of the gig.

“From an individual standpoint, I want to do what’s best for my career and I think what was best for my career is to stay in St. Louis and to win hockey games. I take a lot of pride in wearing this jersey. It’s a great history here, and the fans are awesome. I’m here to make decisions for my career and for my family and, ultimately, what’s best for this team as well.”

From a pure hockey perspective, that sounds to me like a guy who would rather play 16 minutes a night for a contender than 21 minutes a night for a team 10 points out of the playoffs.

The team we tried to trade him to was one of the 9 teams below us in the standings last year. They were 6 points behind us, they recently got a new GM who is publicly selling a rebuild, and they traded away their #1 D man for futures a couple weeks before he was asked to waive his NTC for them. There are very few teams who have less of a chance to win the Cup in the next 4 years than Philly. Their timeline doesn't remotely line up with Krug's remaining years.

 

[Majorityof1]

No one is suggesting that the added asset(s) be used to convince Krug to waive his NTC. The extra asset(s) is to convince more teams to get into the marketplace to acquire Krug.

You absolutely do not have to convince Krug first. Krug is not going to blanket-waive his NTC. The overwhelming way teams handle requests to waive NTCs comes in one of two forms. One way is to get the framework of a trade done with a specific team and then go to the player and ask him to waive for that specific team. That is what Army says he does and it is what he did with Krug and Philly. The other way is to ask a player for a list of destinations that they would be willing to waive for. We do not know whether this has occurred. Krug specifically avoided providing a definitive answer about whether he would consider waiving his NTC for another team and instead talked about how bad he wants to win a Cup.

You absolutely do not have to convince Krug to waive his NTC before trying to trade him and including assets is absolutely relevant to whether Army can put together a deal to then take to Krug. Suggesting otherwise is 100% not true.

That's all arguing semantics. Which is fine. You are right. Although I'd be surprised if Army went too far into negotiations without any clue of Krug's thoughts on a trade given the previous public veto.

The more interesting question is does a player like Alexandrov move the needle for a team Krug might waive to go to? Akexabdrov's value now and in the near future is cheap near NHL ready depth. Will a team be persuaded to take a vastly overpaid D to save a couple bucks on the 4th line? The problem with Krug will always be his contract. Adding Alexandrov does not change that at all.

We'd need to add someone with upside, or someone with contract value. Or we'd need to take back or retain cap. That matters far more than adding a B or C tier prospect.

 

[Brian39]

That's all arguing semantics. Which is fine. You are right. Although I'd be surprised if Army went too far into negotiations without any clue of Krug's thoughts on a trade given the previous public veto.

FWIW, I'd be stunned if Army and Krug (or more accurately Krug's agent) haven't already had a conversation about the type of destinations Krug would waive for. Probably not a list of teams or a firm commitment to waive, but definitely a conversation along the lines of "Krug values X, Y, and Z at this point in his career and I can tell you that he's not going to accept a trade to a place that doesn't tick those boxes." Those variables could be based on tax advantages, staying in the US, ease of travel back to Michigan, weather, the quality of the receiving team, the style that team plays, the quality of offensive D men already on the roster for the receiving team, etc.

Krug's agent is doing him a massive disservice if they aren't prepping a potential landing spot for him. Krug has a good chunk of leverage at the moment, but that leverage will decrease over the next 4 years. Time is running out for him to win a Cup and I the writing is on the wall that he is pretty damn unlikely to do it as a member of the Blues. Aggressively wielding the NTC without offering any indication about potential landing spots is going to hurt him in the long run. He absolutely shouldn't be making any commitments to waive without a deal already in place, but I would be very, very surprised if Army doesn't have any idea about what Krug would be looking for. Then the ball is in his court to make a deal with a team that checks Krug's boxes so he can make a good pitch to Krug and his agent.

The more interesting question is does a player like Alexandrov move the needle for a team Krug might waive to go to? Akexabdrov's value now and in the near future is cheap near NHL ready depth. Will a team be persuaded to take a vastly overpaid D to save a couple bucks on the 4th line? The problem with Krug will always be his contract. Adding Alexandrov does not change that at all.

We'd need to add someone with upside, or someone with contract value. Or we'd need to take back or retain cap. That matters far more than adding a B or C tier prospect.

Oh, I absolutely don't think that Alexandrov is the one and only thing that would facilitate a Krug deal. And without speaking for him too much, I don't think that @BlueDream was suggesting that Alexandrov was a high value asset that could be the one thing a team would want as part of a decision to take Krug.

But I do think that he could be the second or third asset in such a deal that is worth more to the receiving team than just a complete throw in. It isn't about taking Krug in order to get a guy like Alexandrov. It would be about making Alexandrov part of the package that makes it palatable/possible to overpay Krug.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

FWIW, I'd be stunned if Army and Krug (or more accurately Krug's agent) haven't already had a conversation about the type of destinations Krug would waive for. Probably not a list of teams or a firm commitment to waive, but definitely a conversation along the lines of "Krug values X, Y, and Z at this point in his career and I can tell you that he's not going to accept a trade to a place that doesn't tick those boxes." Those variables could be based on tax advantages, staying in the US, ease of travel back to Michigan, weather, the quality of the receiving team, the style that team plays, the quality of offensive D men already on the roster for the receiving team, etc.

Krug's agent is doing him a massive disservice if they aren't prepping a potential landing spot for him. Krug has a good chunk of leverage at the moment, but that leverage will decrease over the next 4 years. Time is running out for him to win a Cup and I the writing is on the wall that he is pretty damn unlikely to do it as a member of the Blues. Aggressively wielding the NTC without offering any indication about potential landing spots is going to hurt him in the long run. He absolutely shouldn't be making any commitments to waive without a deal already in place, but I would be very, very surprised if Army doesn't have any idea about what Krug would be looking for. Then the ball is in his court to make a deal with a team that checks Krug's boxes so he can make a good pitch to Krug and his agent.


Oh, I absolutely don't think that Alexandrov is the one and only thing that would facilitate a Krug deal. And without speaking for him too much, I don't think that @BlueDream was suggesting that Alexandrov was a high value asset that could be the one thing a team would want as part of a decision to take Krug.

But I do think that he could be the second or third asset in such a deal that is worth more to the receiving team than just a complete throw in. It isn't about taking Krug in order to get a guy like Alexandrov. It would be about making Alexandrov part of the package that makes it palatable/possible to overpay Krug.

i think it's worth spotlighting something you said, that krug blocking philly trade and saying he wants to be in st louis has basically zero bearing on whether he would accept a trade to a relatively desirable destination. i haven't run numbers, but it seems like more often than not when a player vetoes trade he ends up still getting dealt within a year, just to somewhere else. whether that is detroit or nyi or calgary or i don't know, but there are about 30 teams in the league with more desirable situations for krug than philly.

 

[ezcreepin]

I think you may have misread my post.

I’m surprised so many fans are optimistic vs what the national projections are.

I’m not surprised at the national projections being pessimistic.

I'm neither pessimistic nor optimistic about the Blues this season. They're going to be terrible, but I don't know if we'll be markedly worse than last year. If you made me make a bet on it, I'd probably say 10th again, but the lower the better

Also, I don't understand why 101 ESPN is so optimistic about this team. All of their takes on sports largely are stupid and ignorant (they know the least about hockey) and I realize they're slightly above average in knowledge compared to the population, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Obviously you don't want your local radio station trashing the team, but I'd much prefer some intellectual honesty as opposed to homerism. Today they were saying the Blues center depth could be comparable to the Canes. Like what? Are you guys dense? In point totals sure, but the Canes aren't known for their high octane offense lmao

I don't know what to tell you if you truly believe that there is no chance of Krug waiving his NTC. That is just willfully ignoring the reality of pro sports in 2023. Here are some of the several reasons Krug may decide to waive his NTC:

1: Perunovich passes him on the depth chart and takes most of his minutes. He is suddenly facing the reality of healthy scratches and/or playing 12-14 minutes a night for the rest of his career.

2: We come to him with a potential trade to a destination that is more desirable than Philly. The Flayers were in an unambiguous long-term rebuild under a hard ass coach who is notorious for benching offense-first guys who aren't getting it done defensively. From an on-ice perspective, Philly in the summer of 2023 was one of the least appealing landing spots for a guy like Krug.

3: The team informs Krug that he will be placed on waivers if he doesn't waive his NTC. He then has to make a decision about whether the risk of being claimed by a basement dweller or even being sent to the AHL outweighs the reward of trying to leverage his NTC to stay in St. Louis.

4: The team informs him that the plan is to buy him out this summer if he isn't traded by the draft. That would cost him $7M real dollars. He'd have a chance to make up some of those losses as a UFA, but if it gets to the point of a buyout, it probably means that his play/usage in 2023/24 wasn't good enough for a 33 year old Krug to make up all those earnings. Additionally, he would almost certainly see a dip in short-term earnings in 2024/25 when he is set to make $8.5M. There are real financial incentives for him to avoid a buyout.

Krug wants to be here more than he wanted to be in Philly this summer. Taking his comments as truth and not PR means that he wants to be here more than anywhere. But that comes with the caveat that he wants to be here as a contributing member of the St. Louis Blues. He did not say that he wants to be in the press box more than playing in the NHL elsewhere. He did not say that he wants to be in the AHL as a member of the Blues organization more than he wants to play in the NHL elsewhere.

There are tons of avenues for him to decide to waive his NTC and acting like it is an outright bar on any potential trade talk is silly.

Sure those could all be possibilities, but the reality is that the Blues will do none of them. Best and only case scenario is that a playoff team suitable for Krug emerges, they have the cap, and we offload him for few assets. I don't see a world where Krug plays significantly less, where he gets waived, where he gets bought out; the only realistic scenario to move him is to trade him to a playoff contender in need.