2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[shpongle falls]

I’m actually pretty optimistic about this season. I think the Blues will be good enough to at least get a wild card and make the playoffs.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I don't really care whether the Blues are a Top 15 playoff teams or a Bottom 10 lottery team. Just pick a lane. If you wanna be good be good, if you wanna suck then suck. Don't get stuck in the middle.

 

[Brian39]

I'm not going to argue his role wasn't reduced, My point was that he effectively missed two games during the season last year and it took 30 seconds off of his total ice time for the entire year. It's not necessarily a major argument that I'll die on, but it bumps his ice time to 19 minutes instead of 18:30.

Obviously his role was reduced, though my argument is that I don't see him getting less than 18 minutes a night because my belief is the Blues still consider him a top 4 defenseman despite his defense. Those are the arguments people are making here to get rid of him; reduce his ice time significantly (like borderline 15-16 minutes), waiving him, etc. The Blues have never done something like that and I don't suspect it will happen here. (Edit: they haven't done that since I've been watching.)

We'd probably have to look into the logs harder to say whether or not injuries affected his ice time in 20-21. Maybe Berube thought more highly of him and played him way more than he should've been, or maybe it was injuries that propelled him into the top 2 spot, I don't know. There's probably a lot of factors that contributed to that. Anyway, my point is that I believe the Blues view him differently than we do and he'll likely play 18:30-19 min again this year, but we'll just have to revisit the convo at the end of the year.

I think my overall stance/point is that we have already seen the coaching staff get damn close to that level of usage. 16 of his 61 full games last year saw him come in under 17 minutes a night while consistently manning the top PP unit when healthy. And that was with Scandella missing 75% of the season and Mikkola being traded after 50 games. We only had 5 D men play 50+ games last season and one of them was Mikkola who played exactly 50. There kind of wasn't any other option but for Krug to be playing the 4th most minutes.

His ATOI was 4th on the Blues last year, but there was a huge gap between him and #3. Parayko played 20:28 a night at even strength while Faulk and Leddy each played 19:10. Krug came in at 15:47. That was 139th out of all D men who played 40+ NHL games last year. At even strength, we used him like a #4/5 tweener on average last year and he was used like a clear #5 in about 25% of his games.

It's far from a lock that his TOI continues to decrease, but he's already a lot closer to 3rd pair minutes than I think you believe. Scandella or Tucker proving that they can play a #4 role would very likely push him to unambiguous 3rd pair minutes at even strength. Perunovich getting a shot and impressing on the PP could lead to Krug's PP time getting cut in half. Either of those things would knock his usage into the 17s and both happening would push him into the 15-16 range. I don't view any of that as unrealistic.

 

[Brian39]

I don't really care whether the Blues are a Top 15 playoff teams or a Bottom 10 lottery team. Just pick a lane. If you wanna be good be good, if you wanna suck then suck. Don't get stuck in the middle.

I'm fine with the middle. Being in the middle means that we at least get to watch 50-60 or so games of entertaining and somewhat meaningful hockey. So long as they still sell pending UFAs, I'm perfectly content with being a middle of the pack team. And Army has repeatedly shown a willingness to sell instead of clinging to mediocrity.

Being in the mushy middle is a problem when the front office is still trying hard enough to win that they are making decisions that negatively impact the future (trading away picks/prospects for short term help, committing future cap, letting guys walk for nothing, etc). IMO, it is those decisions that keep you in mediocrity, not the fact that you pick 13th instead of 7th.

I'll be happy if we find success in a new system and are a top 12 or so team in the league. If we don't do that, then I'll be content so long as we decide to sell at the deadline to accumulate as many futures assets as we can get.

I think the roster is just demonstrably too good to finish bottom 5. There are still some truly putrid teams around the league. I look at San Jose's roster and can't see us out-tanking them. I look at Chicago's roster and I can't see us out-tanking them. There are 5 teams that finished below 70 points last year and had a goal differential of -75 or worse. 4 of them finished with 60 or fewer points and had 26 or fewer wins. We had 31 wins and 81 points. We have to get a lot worse to be at that level.

Our roster has plenty of flaws, but there is genuine top line talent and at least 15 of the skaters in the projected opening night lineup would have a spot on the large majority of NHL rosters around the league (Thomas, Schenn, Hayes, Buch, Kyrou, Vrana, Kap, Saad, Blais, Sunny, Faulk, Parayko, Leddy, Krug, and Scandella). I think you can make an argument for a couple more. There are some teams out there that have 5+ guys who are clearly not NHL caliber players. And those same teams have two goalies who are barely clinging to an NHL career.

I just don't think this roster is bad enough to root for a tank before opening day.

 

[Klank Loves You]

I'd rather tank, than end up with a first round playoff loss. One more quality draft, and i think there is enough there to trade pieces for a top 2 d, and have enough F's to fuel a contender for another 5-7 years. Our current D core is mediocre at best, and we are stuck with them for a while. Without adding a major piece on the back end, a Cup is out of reach.

 

[Xerloris]

I think my overall stance/point is that we have already seen the coaching staff get damn close to that level of usage. 16 of his 61 full games last year saw him come in under 17 minutes a night while consistently manning the top PP unit when healthy. And that was with Scandella missing 75% of the season and Mikkola being traded after 50 games. We only had 5 D men play 50+ games last season and one of them was Mikkola who played exactly 50. There kind of wasn't any other option but for Krug to be playing the 4th most minutes.

His ATOI was 4th on the Blues last year, but there was a huge gap between him and #3. Parayko played 20:28 a night at even strength while Faulk and Leddy each played 19:10. Krug came in at 15:47. That was 139th out of all D men who played 40+ NHL games last year. At even strength, we used him like a #4/5 tweener on average last year and he was used like a clear #5 in about 25% of his games.

It's far from a lock that his TOI continues to decrease, but he's already a lot closer to 3rd pair minutes than I think you believe. Scandella or Tucker proving that they can play a #4 role would very likely push him to unambiguous 3rd pair minutes at even strength. Perunovich getting a shot and impressing on the PP could lead to Krug's PP time getting cut in half. Either of those things would knock his usage into the 17s and both happening would push him into the 15-16 range. I don't view any of that as unrealistic.

The dude was not right all of last year. When you use the term "even when healthy" it should come with an asterisk because I dont think he was "healthy" at all last year.

 

[BlueDream]

The dude was not right all of last year. When you use the term "even when healthy" it should come with an asterisk because I dont think he was "healthy" at all last year.

And are we expecting that to change this season? I mean he got hurt before training camp even began. That’s not a good sign and as he continues to get older, his ability to stay healthy is a major concern along with many other things.

 

[Mike Liut]

Would you rather lose in rd 1 or have a top 5 pick?

 

[PJJJP]

Would you rather lose in rd 1 or have a top 5 pick?

top 5 pick

 

[Robb_K]

top 5 pick

Same here!

 

[jura]

Would you rather lose in rd 1 or have a top 5 pick?

no way blues suck that bad, mor liek top15 pick

 

[kimzey59]

Would you rather lose in rd 1 or have a top 5 pick?

Let’s be honest here; the name of the site is hockey’s future.
Pretty much everyone is going to prefer the top 5 pick.


The problem is that there is no way to guarantee it, even if we did finish that low in the standings. Granted I would also agree that a top 10 pick is just as preferable, but it still isn’t really a fair question.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

no way blues suck that bad, mor liek top15 pick

Not with a healthy roster, but it’s likely there will be injuries. I could see the season take a sharp nosedive after seeming competitive for a few weeks.

 

[Thallis]

no way blues suck that bad, mor liek top15 pick

They absolutely could be that bad. We're worse on paper than going into last season where we got a top 10 pick while teams below us have gotten better.

 

[Xerloris]

They absolutely could be that bad. We're worse on paper than going into last season where we got a top 10 pick while teams below us have gotten better.

The paper did not account for MacTavish destroying our defensive structure and ROR having a terrible year and Tarasenko coasting.

 

[STL fan in MN]

The paper did not account for MacTavish destroying our defensive structure and ROR having a terrible year and Tarasenko coasting.

Yeah, I mean, if there’s any truth at all about Rivers saying a majority of the Blues’ locker room issues being traded to NY, then simply a better environment could make a world of difference. They did play a lot better after the trade deadline after all. And it’s not like Vrana, Kapanen and Scandella (for the handful of games he played before getting injured again), should’ve improved things that much.

There was supposedly also some guys that weren’t fans of Kyrou and Thomas’ extensions. Hopefully everyone is over that now or no longer play for this organization. Everyone pulling in the same direction is a must to be successful but as we found out last season, it’s far from a given.

 

[Thallis]

Yeah, I mean, if there’s any truth at all about Rivers saying a majority of the Blues’ locker room issues being traded to NY, then simply a better environment could make a world of difference. They did play a lot better after the trade deadline after all. And it’s not like Vrana, Kapanen and Scandella (for the handful of games he played before getting injured again), should’ve improved things that much.

There was supposedly also some guys that weren’t fans of Kyrou and Thomas’ extensions. Hopefully everyone is over that now or no longer play for this organization. Everyone pulling in the same direction is a must to be successful but as we found out last season, it’s far from a given.

It was by far the softest part of the schedule and they still weren't at a playoff pace.

 

[ezcreepin]

I think my overall stance/point is that we have already seen the coaching staff get damn close to that level of usage. 16 of his 61 full games last year saw him come in under 17 minutes a night while consistently manning the top PP unit when healthy. And that was with Scandella missing 75% of the season and Mikkola being traded after 50 games. We only had 5 D men play 50+ games last season and one of them was Mikkola who played exactly 50. There kind of wasn't any other option but for Krug to be playing the 4th most minutes.

His ATOI was 4th on the Blues last year, but there was a huge gap between him and #3. Parayko played 20:28 a night at even strength while Faulk and Leddy each played 19:10. Krug came in at 15:47. That was 139th out of all D men who played 40+ NHL games last year. At even strength, we used him like a #4/5 tweener on average last year and he was used like a clear #5 in about 25% of his games.

It's far from a lock that his TOI continues to decrease, but he's already a lot closer to 3rd pair minutes than I think you believe. Scandella or Tucker proving that they can play a #4 role would very likely push him to unambiguous 3rd pair minutes at even strength. Perunovich getting a shot and impressing on the PP could lead to Krug's PP time getting cut in half. Either of those things would knock his usage into the 17s and both happening would push him into the 15-16 range. I don't view any of that as unrealistic.

For what it's worth, I don't know if Krug was healthy for many parts of the season last year (when is he ever) just as Xerloris pointed out. Now I'll be honest and say that's conjecture, but that's what it looked like. Having said that, I can't really disagree at all that his ice time would drop for parts of the season below 17 minutes, sometimes it would be up to 19 minutes, so there's not really consensus on how the coaching staff is going to play him unless there are injuries and he's forced into a role. It was obvious he would move around and play on the 3rd pair sometimes just because of the fact that he isn't a good defender, which supports your argument.

The thing supporting my argument is that the Blues never can a player outright unless there is a suitable replacement waiting in the wings so I'll say this: If Perunovich can give equal production from the backend and on the powerplay (which is definitely possible) AND he provides durability and feistiness on the backend that Krug can't along with some solid defensive play, then I will be in full agreement that Krug will see a big dip in ice time. The largest roadblock I see in those things happening are that all of Scandella, Krug, and Perunovich will likely get hurt which will see each of them playing more than they ought to, and we probably won't get an accurate assessment of what the staff thinks of these guys. Also the staff favors veterans way more than they should despite a younger player having much higher upside, but this was during the contending teams, so maybe they're more receptive to giving others a shot.

I'll keep repeating this though, I'd like to wait for more information to make a definitive statement on Krug. These are just my observations and psycho-analysis of the coaching staff, so I could be completely wrong on what will happen. Obviously I'm going to think I have a good assessment of the situation, but I'm always open to changing my mind provided there's enough evidence to substantiate the claims, which at the moment idk if there is enough. And I guess at this point, that's what we're debating.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I was hoping we’d never see the Krug-Faulk pairing ever again.

The only time our defense played moderately well last year was when we ran Scandella-Faulk and Krug-Tucker/Bortuzzo as our bottom 2 pairs.

 

[simon IC]

For what it's worth, I don't know if Krug was healthy for many parts of the season last year (when is he ever) just as Xerloris pointed out. Now I'll be honest and say that's conjecture, but that's what it looked like. Having said that, I can't really disagree at all that his ice time would drop for parts of the season below 17 minutes, sometimes it would be up to 19 minutes, so there's not really consensus on how the coaching staff is going to play him unless there are injuries and he's forced into a role. It was obvious he would move around and play on the 3rd pair sometimes just because of the fact that he isn't a good defender, which supports your argument.

The thing supporting my argument is that the Blues never can a player outright unless there is a suitable replacement waiting in the wings so I'll say this: If Perunovich can give equal production from the backend and on the powerplay (which is definitely possible) AND he provides durability and feistiness on the backend that Krug can't along with some solid defensive play, then I will be in full agreement that Krug will see a big dip in ice time. The largest roadblock I see in those things happening are that all of Scandella, Krug, and Perunovich will likely get hurt which will see each of them playing more than they ought to, and we probably won't get an accurate assessment of what the staff thinks of these guys. Also the staff favors veterans way more than they should despite a younger player having much higher upside, but this was during the contending teams, so maybe they're more receptive to giving others a shot.

I'll keep repeating this though, I'd like to wait for more information to make a definitive statement on Krug. These are just my observations and psycho-analysis of the coaching staff, so I could be completely wrong on what will happen. Obviously I'm going to think I have a good assessment of the situation, but I'm always open to changing my mind provided there's enough evidence to substantiate the claims, which at the moment idk if there is enough. And I guess at this point, that's what we're debating.

I just don't see a situation where Perunovich takes Krug's ice time unless the former is injured. I have been watching Perunovich closely, and I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that he is any better than Krug defensively. Krug is still better offensively and is actually tougher. (Not that that matters in their role). Perunovich looks to me like a "Krug-Lite". The only way that he is better than Krug is that he is a slightly better skater.

 

[Robb_K]

no way blues suck that bad, mor liek top15 pick

Top 8 to 12, depending on health and injuries, the new defence system, goaltending performance, and how the youngsters develop.

 

[taylord22]

I just don't see a situation where Perunovich takes Krug's ice time unless the former is injured. I have been watching Perunovich closely, and I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that he is any better than Krug defensively. Krug is still better offensively and is actually tougher. (Not that that matters in their role). Perunovich looks to me like a "Krug-Lite". The only way that he is better than Krug is that he is a slightly better skater.

He uses his skating to get inside positioning more than I’ve seen from Krug. Krug plays like a guy that’s bigger/stronger than he actually is. Perunovich plays defense like an undersized dman.

The last two games were rough for Perunovich after what I thought was a decent start to camp. He still gets the puck up and out faster than most of our guys, though, which was a huge sore spot last year. He needs NHL reps — as a player and as an asset.

I wouldn’t blink if the right deal fell into our lap to move on…but for a team whose returning a near 1:1 of a poorly performing D-core, moving on from a player that’s clearly got talent (and has missed A LOT of time) seems like a gamble we don’t have the luxury of making.

…in other words, it would be a very Blues-y thing to do — he’ll be a Red Wing before Thanksgiving

 

[ezcreepin]

I just don't see a situation where Perunovich takes Krug's ice time unless the former is injured. I have been watching Perunovich closely, and I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that he is any better than Krug defensively. Krug is still better offensively and is actually tougher. (Not that that matters in their role). Perunovich looks to me like a "Krug-Lite". The only way that he is better than Krug is that he is a slightly better skater.

The only saving grace Perunovich would have over Krug is durability (which he doesn't have) and scoring at a higher clip (which he hasn't shown he can). Perunovich is the obvioius replacement for Krug if he is indeed traded at some point, but they are redundant players at this point and idk if the coaching staff wants two liabilities on the backend seeing as how they preach the defensive game. It would be nice to see Perunovich take that next step, but I see it being difficult for him to establish himself just like it was for Dunn. We'll just have to see

 

[STL fan in MN]

What’s that old saying? You don’t really know what you have in a d-man until he’s played 100 games. Perunovich needs games.

He’s still quite raw but he needs to play so we can see what we have.

But I also generally agree that having both Krug and Perunovich doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think we know which one the Blues want to trade. Which one actually leaves first though is harder to say.

 

[Majorityof1]

Perunovich is the obvioius replacement for Krug if he is indeed traded at some point,

Why would we want to replace Krug with more of the same? If we can get rid of Krug, we should celebrate being rid of a bad hockey player and not be looking for the next bad hockey player to replace him with. The obvious player to replace Krug with is one who can play serviceable defense at the NHL level, not Perunovich.

What’s that old saying? You don’t really know what you have in a d-man until he’s played 100 games. Perunovich needs games.

He’s still quite raw but he needs to play so we can see what we have.

But I also generally agree that having both Krug and Perunovich doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think we know which one the Blues want to trade. Which one actually leaves first though is harder to say.

Why don't we give games to the dozens of other prospects who don't get 100 games? Send him to the AHL to get games instead. If we had a shot at being competitive, I'd be pissed he made the team. As is, I hope he and Krug get 205 minutes a night. Boost our draft pick so we can draft a better D to be the real Krug replacement when we finally get rid of him 4 years from now.