2023-2024 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[Linkens Mastery]

The Athletic released new player cards, and the Blues only have 3 players that have a Positive Net Rating. Thomas +11(11 Off, 0 Def), Buch +7(8 Off, -1 Def), Kyrou +6(6 Off, 0 Def).

Parayko is the only other everyday player to have an even or better defensive ratings at 0.

Edit. Also, unsurprisingly, Neighbours is the only other forward who isn't a negative offensively.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Dom's recent article for The Athletic.

2. I get a lot of questions about Colton Parayko, a player Blues fans swear by but whose modeled value doesn’t exactly line up. And I don’t blame them.

Blues fans see a still solid top-pair defenseman hamstrung by his surroundings, one who can defend well and move the puck. And they’re right about some of those things. Models see a player in over his head who doesn’t offer much offense and has been crushed by his surroundings, enough to be skeptical about just how good he really is.

A decent defenseman in a difficult situation with little support on a bad team? Those are always the trickiest players to analyze. When enough fans look at the numbers and tell you “This is wrong, this guy is still legit,” it’s enough to give pause and dig deeper.

I’m still in the process of working out better quality of teammate and competition adjustments for situations like this which will hopefully be ready before the playoffs. Early indications suggest those adjustments should make Parayko look a fair bit better. Offensively he still looks like a drag, but defensively he’s 22nd in competition difficulty and 12th in teammate quality. That’s an onerous situation, so the fact he even carries an average Defensive Rating is pretty impressive. His defensive burden is the fifth hardest in the league.



Parayko’s contract is still dicey — he’s 31 and has six years after this one at $6.5 million per — and acquiring him is risky given his recent results. But in the right situation with the right fit, he looks like someone who can thrive as a potential No. 2.

It's good that he's acknowledging some of the limitations of his cards, I'm unsure how much of that has to do with genuine reflection or how some of his peers are producing visualizations that show more of the underlying stats, instead of just the high level.

 

[Majorityof1]

Looking at the Hanafin trade, I think one take-away is that we probably don't stand a chance of signing him UFA. If we stood any chance of re-signing him and wanted to, we could have easily beaten that deal. Rumors were he wanted TB and they even had an extension in place. Given the return, it seems he severely limited the market on where he'd want to go. So when planning our future, we can cross him off our 1LD wish list, or at least put an asterisk by his name.

 

[Celtic Note]

Looking at the Hanafin trade, I think one take-away is that we probably don't stand a chance of signing him UFA. If we stood any chance of re-signing him and wanted to, we could have easily beaten that deal. Rumors were he wanted TB and they even had an extension in place. Given the return, it seems he severely limited the market on where he'd want to go. So when planning our future, we can cross him off our 1LD wish list, or at least put an asterisk by his name.

he really doesn’t seem like the #1 D we need, but the more I think about it, I think we need a #2 as well. Parayko projects more as a #3 as we start to get better. My concern is using assets for a #2 before we have a #1 because that #1 will take significant assets and I am not sure how many we can afford to bleed. We have forward depth on the way. I am still hoping we get a Tage Thompson / Robert Thomas type jump from someone. We absolutely need that. I think we have our #2 C in Dvorsky if he pans out and a we have some really good depth on the wings. But if we have to use those players to acquire a #1 and a #2 D, I think we are then going to be looking at gaps in our forward depth. I really think we need another round of asset accumulation to position ourselves in a spot to succeed.

 

[bleedblue1223]

he really doesn’t seem like the #1 D we need, but the more I think about it, I think we need a #2 as well. Parayko projects more as a #3 as we start to get better. My concern is using assets for a #2 before we have a #1 because that #1 will take significant assets and I am not sure how many we can afford to bleed. We have forward depth on the way. I am still hoping we get a Tage Thompson / Robert Thomas type jump from someone. We absolutely need that. I think we have our #2 C in Dvorsky if he pans out and a we have some really good depth on the wings. But if we have to use those players to acquire a #1 and a #2 D, I think we are then going to be looking at gaps in our forward depth. I really think we need another round of asset accumulation to position ourselves in a spot to succeed.

If we are projecting 3-4 years down the road when Parayko is no longer what he is today, at least 1 of those top 2 guys has to be someone we draft IMO. Maybe that means Lindstein, maybe that's someone in this draft, or maybe someone like Buchinger develops into what we hoped Dunn would've here. I wouldn't spend too much time on that problem though, that's something we'll just have to deal with when we get there. Who knows, at that point, we might be in the position to acquire that type of defensemen like Vegas got Hanifin.

I agree though, we do need more assets, and I think that's why Army wants a Buchnevich deal done at the deadline or the draft. If we could have 6+ picks in the first 3 rounds on this draft, and some quality prospects, I think we'll be in good shape to either rebuild through development, or a hybrid where it's partial youth and we flip some of the youth for current NHL players.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's not just that you have to plan for what Parayko won't be in a few years. You have to plan for that with Faulk. And Leddy. And Krug. Or, you have to plan for who you're going to have when they're gone. And I think it's pretty clear we don't have all of those pieces here, which means some combination of drafting, trades or FA signings to fill those spots.

* Drafting means hoping we find the right guys and they can step in quickly and get up to speed quickly.
* Free agency means hoping someone goes to market, where we at them and they take our offer over everyone else's. And, based on Armstrong's m.o., they do that and agree to take $0.00 in signing bonus. And, based on Armstrong's m.o., they agree to not have a NMC that Armstrong won't give anyone. And, based on Armstrong's m.o., they agree to not have a full NTC for all years that Armstrong's recent contracts all don't have.
* Trades mean giving up assets we all really like - 1st-round picks, highly touted forward prospects - which shifts us out of any rebuild retool restructuring and into "we're going for the playoffs now and more later" mode.

Best case [but really low-probability] scenario: Buchinger and Lindstein hit big, Kessel becomes the better half of a 3/4, Parayko catches fire with one of them and we buy time to find someone who can slot into Parayko's spot in a little while.

Worst case scenario: other than "Buchinger and Lindstein bomb out completely" or career-threatening injuries near-term, it's that they settle into a 3/4 role, Kessel settles into a 5/6, Parayko clearly fades out of a 3/4 role, and now we have to go out and find both halves of a top pairing.

 

[Mike Liut]

It’s so damn hard to build a perennial contender in the nhl. There are so many factors in play. Age of players, salary cap, expiring contracts, luck with drafting, injuries etc…. I’m not too confident that we are anywhere near ready to compete again. At least I got to see one cup in my lifetime lol.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

It’s so damn hard to build a perennial contender in the nhl. There are so many factors in play. Age of players, salary cap, expiring contracts, luck with drafting, injuries etc…. I’m not too confident that we are anywhere near ready to compete again. At least I got to see one cup in my lifetime lol.

Dont forget Vegas spending assets like a asteroid is plummeting at the earth to destroy us all in 3 months

 

[PocketNines]

he really doesn’t seem like the #1 D we need, but the more I think about it, I think we need a #2 as well. Parayko projects more as a #3 as we start to get better. My concern is using assets for a #2 before we have a #1 because that #1 will take significant assets and I am not sure how many we can afford to bleed. We have forward depth on the way. I am still hoping we get a Tage Thompson / Robert Thomas type jump from someone. We absolutely need that. I think we have our #2 C in Dvorsky if he pans out and a we have some really good depth on the wings. But if we have to use those players to acquire a #1 and a #2 D, I think we are then going to be looking at gaps in our forward depth. I really think we need another round of asset accumulation to position ourselves in a spot to succeed.

I think the defense at this point simply needs raw talent infused into it and things have to shake out from there. It's TBD how long this will take, so it's wrong to ask any fan to guess what year of Parayko's contract that will be. How are we supposed to know when our GM will get it done when our GM is just not getting it done?

 

[TheDizee]

Kitten soft crybabies

 

[BlueDream]

Kitten soft crybabies

Remember when we used to be good defensively and hard to play against?

Then the GM got too cute and thought he needed to change the entire makeup of the team for the “new NHL” or something like that. Working out great.

 

[Majorityof1]

Remember when we used to be good defensively and hard to play against?

Then the GM got too cute and thought he needed to change the entire makeup of the team for the “new NHL” or something like that. Working out great.

I don't know about that. Krug is the only big acquisition that is not hard to play against. Faulk is a strong hitter at the blue line and Buch is a pest. I don't remember you being vocally against Krug at the time. What moves were you like "no, this is bad, we are getting away from our identity"?

 

[BlueDream]

I don't know about that. Krug is the only big acquisition that is not hard to play against. Faulk is a strong hitter at the blue line and Buch is a pest. I don't remember you being vocally against Krug at the time. What moves were you like "no, this is bad, we are getting away from our identity"?

What a question. I’ve made it very clear the players I’m upset about losing over the years, I’m not going to rehash that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I do think having Krug, Faulk, and Leddy made us easier to attack in some sense compared to when we had a group of tall defensemen that had good sticks and long reaches. Not that our previous group was that phsyical, but I do think we benefitted from their size. I don't know how much of an option Army had in finding replacements that he would've truly preferred, but that's a pretty big change IMO.

 

[LGB]

I agree we’re easy to play against. Not because we’re soft though, because we can’t hold possession and are constantly defending.

 

[Majorityof1]

What a question. I’ve made it very clear the players I’m upset about losing over the years, I’m not going to rehash that.

Fair enough. I don't remember specifics. And we disagree enough, I assumed you were pro-Krug at the time

 

[BlueDream]

I do think having Krug, Faulk, and Leddy made us easier to attack in some sense compared to when we had a group of tall defensemen that had good sticks and long reaches. Not that our previous group was that phsyical, but I do think we benefitted from their size. I don't know how much of an option Army had in finding replacements that he would've truly preferred, but that's a pretty big change IMO.

I agree, size matters and that’s why whoever we trade for on defense I think needs to have some size.

You can get away with a smaller blueline if it’s elite like Colorado. If not, it’s probably not going to work that well.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I agree we’re easy to play against. Not because we’re soft though, because we can’t hold possession and are constantly defending.

I agree, but softness is an aspect of it. We can't cycle worth a damn anymore. I don't want the biggest and meanest players, but guys like O'Reilly and Perron. Guys like Backes and Steen. Guys like Bozak. Sustained offensive pressure isn't a thing in this group. Cycling and extending possessions isn't a thing in this group. And that's why we get exposed defensively.

 

[bleedblue1223]

In 21/22, when we were unsustainably good, it was because our slot passing was off the charts. We were creating and converting those high-danger chances at very high rates. Since then, it's really just Thomas that's been able to sustain that type of play, and everything else around him got exposed. I do agree that we needed to change styles to the new NHL, but we just didn't have the players to do it.

 

[hullderko]

Kitten soft crybabies

I realize that here we encourage tanking to improve picks, etc. But I would think that the org would be pressing the goal of making the playoffs when only 4pts out of a playoff spot. Bannister has not had the team prepared to play these last few games. Replace "...to easy to play against" with "... not hungry to compete enough to make the playoffs."

 

[LGB]

I agree, but softness is an aspect of it. We can't cycle worth a damn anymore. I don't want the biggest and meanest players, but guys like O'Reilly and Perron. Guys like Backes and Steen. Guys like Bozak. Sustained offensive pressure isn't a thing in this group. Cycling and extending possessions isn't a thing in this group. And that's why we get exposed defensively.

True, but NJ isn’t what anyone would call a physical team and they were dominating possession including long cycles. My point is just that it’s more of a talent issue.

 

[bleedblue1223]

True, but NJ isn’t what anyone would call a physical team and they were dominating possession including long cycles. My point is just that it’s more of a talent issue.

That's what I'm trying to say too. I wouldn't say O'Reilly, Perron, Steen, Bozak and guys like that are physical. We 100% have a talent issue, and we also need to make sure that once we get talent, they aren't just perimeter players.

 

[Hrkac Circus]

So at least we’ll have Buchy on the roster for next next season. (Unless we trade him in the offseason.)That’s not going to help the tank this season though. But it seems like it don’ need no help at the moment.

 

[Celtic Note]

So at least we’ll have Buchy on the roster for next next season. (Unless we trade him in the offseason.)That’s not going to help the tank this season though. But it seems like it don’ need no help at the moment.

Just good enough to not be bad. I hope that’s not going to be our motto for the next decade.

 

[Brockon]

Just good enough to not be bad. I hope that’s not going to be our motto for the next decade.

There's can only be one Minnesota, let's hope that we don't become the epidemy of mediocrity for the next decade+