2024-2025 Blues Trade Proposals Thread.

[bleedblue1223]

You’re ignoring most of what I’ve written and instead focused on an argument that I haven’t made.

Nobody’s claiming that 80 on the chart is some defensive ability rating, as if this is a video game. What that number does tell us that there’s not a whole lot more Kyrou can do to prevent opposing teams from creating offensive chances while he’s on the ice this season.

Kyrou in previous seasons was around the 15th percentile. He’s now in the 80th percentile. Are we to believe that he somehow a player once the 15th percentile is now able to accomplish this without improvement in defensive ability?

He’s likely not better than 80 percent of NHLers, but that was never the argument, and that’s what you’ve locked in on for some reason. But overall given the whole package that he’s brought the ice this season, he’s far more valuable than players that receive much less criticism.

Let’s phrase it this way. At what point can we admit that Kyrou has value in his ability to preventing the other team from scoring? That is the entire point of the graph (not whatever you’re suggesting). Even admitting that seems to be too much for some Blues fans.

What do you think I'm ignoring? I respond to it, but it's probably because I don't think whatever it was was important or it's something I agree with and don't see the point in discussing it.

What I'm focusing on is anytime someone suggests and links possession metrics, as in suppressing scoring chances or xGA, to defensive ability. I believe you've done that in multiple posts as a way to argue that Kyrou has improved defensively. At best they are loosely linked, but still largely driven by usage, role, teammates, opponents, and/or system. Once you normalize a dataset and compare players with similar usage and roles, you can better make some of those arguments. I'd hope we'd agree that Pietrangelo was always better defensively than Shattenkirk and that Thomas is a better defensive player than Kyrou.

Look, there's no real point in keeping this going, since we broadly agree that Kyrou has improved his game this season. It's always been my position that Kyrou never has to be good defensively, he just has to get to a level that Tarasenko was at for us. He's done that, I'm happy with him, I think most here are happy with him.

What do you think my argument has been?

 

[BleedBlue14]

Army is a little guilty of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he talks about chipping away at the core (alluding via trading them). On the other hand, he is all about a retool instead of a rebuild.

Thomas, Kyrou, Holloway, Schenn, Buchnevich, Broberg, Parayko, and Binnington are the core players.

It makes zero sense to trade Holloway and Broberg.

Schenn might have a little value but I’m comfortable with the opinion that Army highly overrates him.

Parayko is the only top 4 RHD and playing his best hockey.

He just extended Buch.

Maybe Army views Faulk in the “core” and his tenure with the Blues is on the line. Even if that’s true, the return isn’t going to be that much.

I don’t think Binnington has played bad enough to warrant being traded based on performance.

That leaves Thomas and Kyrou.

Trading one would certainly shake up the roster. I know Thomas is always thought of as untouchable. Is he? Everyone understands he’s the team’s best C. I think some teams might be willing to overpay though.

Would you trade Thomas to Buffalo for a top 5 pick, + Byrum, + Helenius?

I would go for an overpay like that. I don’t see Army making him available though.

Kyrou would have a high return but I think the odds of teams overpaying for him compared to Thomas are slim.

Thomas should be either the first or the last player traded.

He is literally the centerpiece of what you’re building around. I question whether or not our whole core around that age range is good enough and it’s going to need to be supplemented with a RHD in that age range. But regardless 23-26 is our core age range. Do you really want to shift the core age range to 18-20? What comes with that is 5+ years of trying to get back to where we are now and hoping for the next step. It’s not likely that either Dvorsky or Helenius are 200ft PPG matchup centers like Thomas has turned in to.

It’s amazing how the thoughts change after a mediocre 10 game stretch after returning from injury in which it’s very visible Thomas is gripping the shit out of the stick right now.

 

[Brian39]

zone starts are fairly meaningless, other than an indication of what role a coach has for a player
most shifts start on the fly

kyrou has a ozone start rate of 21.4, a neutral zone start rate of 14.8 and a dzone start rate of 8.1

so over a 100 shifts he would start only 21 in the ozone

...and the range between brutal and amazing shot/chance/attempt/expected goal differential is about 10 percentage points. 45% is getting caved in while 55% carrying play.

The difference between a great goalie and an AHL goalie is about 3 percentage points of SV%.

Pretty much every metric we use to evaluate players has a pretty small range between unacceptable and great. Starting an extra 12 percentage points in a certain situation is pretty far from a meaningless quantity. Zone starts aren't everything, but they are pretty far from meaningless.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

...and the range between brutal and amazing shot/chance/attempt/expected goal differential is about 10 percentage points. 45% is getting caved in while 55% carrying play.

The difference between a great goalie and an AHL goalie is about 3 percentage points of SV%.

Pretty much every metric we use to evaluate players has a pretty small range between unacceptable and great. Starting an extra 12 percentage points in a certain situation is pretty far from a meaningless quantity. Zone starts aren't everything, but they are pretty far from meaningless.

I just think it gets overlooked a lot. “Oh look, this guy is getting caved in.” Yeah, but he’s starting 2/3rds of his shifts with the puck in his own zone. Or, alternatively, “this guy is great! His advanced stats are through the roof!” Yes but he’s exclusively being put in situations to succeed, because his coach doesn’t trust him in his own zone.

When I play with my little spreadsheets, it’s one of the first things I sort by. If I’m building a team, I want guys who are getting tough deployment and coming out positive in CF%rel or GF% or HDCF% or whatever. Or at least they’re faring better than other guys with similar deployment. Guys who are out there all the time and in unfavorable circumstances are going to get scored on. It’s about doing better than your average bear.

For me, it’s a better way of gauging the mythical “200-foot player” than hits or anything else. You at least have to be aware of it.

 

[Brian39]

Thomas should be either the first or the last player traded.

He is literally the centerpiece of what you’re building around. I question whether or not our whole core around that age range is good enough and it’s going to need to be supplemented with a RHD in that age range. But regardless 23-26 is our core age range. Do you really want to shift the core age range to 18-20? What comes with that is 5+ years of trying to get back to where we are now and hoping for the next step. It’s not likely that either Dvorsky or Helenius are 200ft PPG matchup centers like Thomas has turned in to.

It’s amazing how the thoughts change after a mediocre 10 game stretch after returning from injury in which it’s very visible Thomas is gripping the shit out of the stick right now.

I agree with all this except the notion of trading him first or last (which I realize means that you are saying he should only be moved in a complete, burn-it-to-the-ground fire sale of everyone with remote value on the roster). I'd go a step further and say that even if we sold literally everything else of value on the roster, we should still keep Thomas.

There simply isn't a realistic package that Thomas should be traded for. The odds of 'winning' a Thomas trade are extremely small.

With the confirmation of an exploding cap, a 25 year old legit 1C locked into a $8.125M AAV through his age 31 season is one of the most valuable assets in the league for a team that is looking long-term. As 'long term' assets go, you have your tier of true superstars and then the next tier includes Thomas. Unless you are getting a superstar with term or a Bedard/Celebrini caliber prospect, I think you lose any Thomas trade. And no one is giving up that type of guy for Thomas.

Let's say that this is year 3 of a 6 year process to get back to contention. In year 7 when we are presumably contending again, Thomas would be entering his age 29 season with 3 years left at $8.125M in a league with a cap of $115M+. Having a guy like him for his age 29, 30, and 31 seasons to lead an up and coming group for less than 7% of the salary cap is a ridiculously good asset. Even ignoring any value he brings to make the re-whatever process take less than 6 years (with 2022/23 as year 1), the value he brings while we are on the upswing is enormous.

This organization is absolutely not going to be interested in a rebuild where we throw away another 4+ seasons after this one. Nor should it be. But that is the only scenario where a Thomas trade makes sense and even then I think we would look back and believe that we lost the trade.

Edit: For clarity, Thomas is the only player on the roster that I think rises to this level of 'untouchability.' Kyrou is the only other established vet whose age/contract/talent get me close to that thought, but there are a couple considerations that make him a bit more expendable to me. First, I just view a highly skilled scoring winger as a bit less important/impactful than a 2 way playmaking center with 85+ point upside. I'd take an 85 point center who can defend at a high level over a 105 point winger that is simply decent at defending. Second, I'm more comfortable about our wing prospects being able to adequately fill the void than our center prospects. I would still need a haul to move Kyrou as I view him as extremely valuable. But there are realistic packages that would do it for me. Everyone else is either too old or too unproven to reach untouchability.

 

[joe galiba]

...and the range between brutal and amazing shot/chance/attempt/expected goal differential is about 10 percentage points. 45% is getting caved in while 55% carrying play.

The difference between a great goalie and an AHL goalie is about 3 percentage points of SV%.

Pretty much every metric we use to evaluate players has a pretty small range between unacceptable and great. Starting an extra 12 percentage points in a certain situation is pretty far from a meaningless quantity. Zone starts aren't everything, but they are pretty far from meaningless.

disagree on this
zone starts only tell us one thing, and that is how a coach is using a player

a center could be very good on faceoffs but not a good defensive player, yet a coach may use him on dzone faceoffs so his "zone starts" will be skewed
a player may be a very good defensive player yet a coach may staple him to a offensive line, thus skewing his "zone starts", this could also lead to a lesser defensive player getting the defensive usage by default

the only info that zone starts gives us is how a coach chooses to deploy his players after a whistle

 

[LGB]

How much do zone starts matter part II: A lot on their own, not that much in aggregate

In Part I of our review of zone starts, we looked at the how the traditional definition of zone starts varied from what most people would consider a “true” zone start, and found that when we applie…

puckplusplus.com

Based on the CF and CA adjustments given by historical data in this article I calculated what Kyrou's adjusted CF% would be adjusting for zone starts. Zone start data via NST.

Raw CF% = 50.69

Adjusted CF% = 49.99

Does it make a small difference? Yes. I think it's over-discussed relative to it's actual impact.

 

[jjniner]

Kyrou for Willander?

 

[Brian39]

Kyrou for Willander?

Hard pass for me.

There is way too much uncertainty with 19 year old D prospects for me to trade a guy like Kyrou (with 6+ years of reasonable term).

 

[Bluesnatic27]

How much do zone starts matter part II: A lot on their own, not that much in aggregate

In Part I of our review of zone starts, we looked at the how the traditional definition of zone starts varied from what most people would consider a “true” zone start, and found that when we applie…

puckplusplus.com

Based on the CF and CA adjustments given by historical data in this article I calculated what Kyrou's adjusted CF% would be adjusting for zone starts. Zone start data via NST.

Raw CF% = 50.69

Adjusted CF% = 49.99

Does it make a small difference? Yes. I think it's over-discussed relative to it's actual impact.

I agree with your assessment that they become over-discussed when trying to evaluate players. Zone starts can start to play a role when the variance is wide. I find they’re hard to normalize because of coaching bias making the discussion become a chicken-and-the-egg scenario.

 

[Spektre]

Thomas should be either the first or the last player traded.

He is literally the centerpiece of what you’re building around. I question whether or not our whole core around that age range is good enough and it’s going to need to be supplemented with a RHD in that age range. But regardless 23-26 is our core age range. Do you really want to shift the core age range to 18-20? What comes with that is 5+ years of trying to get back to where we are now and hoping for the next step. It’s not likely that either Dvorsky or Helenius are 200ft PPG matchup centers like Thomas has turned in to.

It’s amazing how the thoughts change after a mediocre 10 game stretch after returning from injury in which it’s very visible Thomas is gripping the shit out of the stick right now.

I’m not necessarily advocating for trading Thomas. It’s really more of an exercise to call BS on what Army has said about chipping away at the core.

 

[PocketNines]

Kyrou's extra control on July 1 is personally worrisome in the sense that it's a major structural commitment to a player who is not one I believe in. I see the general improvement and acknowledge it and still don't want him as a major structural piece of the house.

I would bet on our prospect pool's ability to furnish goal scoring/shooting and speed up front, not immediately, but near term both Dvorsky and Snuggerud will be here.

I would seriously listen to any offer with a Grade A prospect in it. Willander is a Grade A prospect in an area of need. I would want to hear the whole offer. But I would be thrilled to get quality exchange value in a world where GMs suddenly don't fear the $$ on his deal

 

[BleedBlue14]

I agree with all this except the notion of trading him first or last (which I realize means that you are saying he should only be moved in a complete, burn-it-to-the-ground fire sale of everyone with remote value on the roster). I'd go a step further and say that even if we sold literally everything else of value on the roster, we should still keep Thomas.

There simply isn't a realistic package that Thomas should be traded for. The odds of 'winning' a Thomas trade are extremely small.

With the confirmation of an exploding cap, a 25 year old legit 1C locked into a $8.125M AAV through his age 31 season is one of the most valuable assets in the league for a team that is looking long-term. As 'long term' assets go, you have your tier of true superstars and then the next tier includes Thomas. Unless you are getting a superstar with term or a Bedard/Celebrini caliber prospect, I think you lose any Thomas trade. And no one is giving up that type of guy for Thomas.

Let's say that this is year 3 of a 6 year process to get back to contention. In year 7 when we are presumably contending again, Thomas would be entering his age 29 season with 3 years left at $8.125M in a league with a cap of $115M+. Having a guy like him for his age 29, 30, and 31 seasons to lead an up and coming group for less than 7% of the salary cap is a ridiculously good asset. Even ignoring any value he brings to make the re-whatever process take less than 6 years (with 2022/23 as year 1), the value he brings while we are on the upswing is enormous.

This organization is absolutely not going to be interested in a rebuild where we throw away another 4+ seasons after this one. Nor should it be. But that is the only scenario where a Thomas trade makes sense and even then I think we would look back and believe that we lost the trade.

Edit: For clarity, Thomas is the only player on the roster that I think rises to this level of 'untouchability.' Kyrou is the only other established vet whose age/contract/talent get me close to that thought, but there are a couple considerations that make him a bit more expendable to me. First, I just view a highly skilled scoring winger as a bit less important/impactful than a 2 way playmaking center with 85+ point upside. I'd take an 85 point center who can defend at a high level over a 105 point winger that is simply decent at defending. Second, I'm more comfortable about our wing prospects being able to adequately fill the void than our center prospects. I would still need a haul to move Kyrou as I view him as extremely valuable. But there are realistic packages that would do it for me. Everyone else is either too old or too unproven to reach untouchability.

That’s more or less what I was getting at is you only do it if you’re burning it all to the ground. Which comes with a long term rebuild. Thought about it a bit more and it would be pretty similar to the Sabres trading Eichel off when they did, minus the reasoning of the health issues etc. just in general impact to the team makeup. You’ll get nice pieces on paper but you’re also going to end up with a mashup of random players not fitting into roles for quite a while until they establish their position. I am of the same mindset you outlined as what direction I believe they go or should go.

 

[BleedBlue14]

Kyrou's extra control on July 1 is personally worrisome in the sense that it's a major structural commitment to a player who is not one I believe in. I see the general improvement and acknowledge it and still don't want him as a major structural piece of the house.

I would bet on our prospect pool's ability to furnish goal scoring/shooting and speed up front, not immediately, but near term both Dvorsky and Snuggerud will be here.

I would seriously listen to any offer with a Grade A prospect in it. Willander is a Grade A prospect in an area of need. I would want to hear the whole offer. But I would be thrilled to get quality exchange value in a world where GMs suddenly don't fear the $$ on his deal

I have to question, with the potential cap increase over the next 3 years, does that change your mind at all?

That’s a decent commitment. But for a guy that’s essentially a PPG winger who is making improvements off puck/focus wise I feel like that’s the cap commitment you will start making to very good 3rd line players or low end 2nd liners to try and fill a gap on the market.

Our cap structure is set up beautifully after the Faulk/Krug contracts expire. And it’s set up beautifully by having Parayko/Thomas/Kyrou at remarkably low rates comparative to what you’re going to see on the open market going forward.

 

[HighNote]

Kyrou's extra control on July 1 is personally worrisome in the sense that it's a major structural commitment to a player who is not one I believe in. I see the general improvement and acknowledge it and still don't want him as a major structural piece of the house.

I would bet on our prospect pool's ability to furnish goal scoring/shooting and speed up front, not immediately, but near term both Dvorsky and Snuggerud will be here.

I would seriously listen to any offer with a Grade A prospect in it. Willander is a Grade A prospect in an area of need. I would want to hear the whole offer. But I would be thrilled to get quality exchange value in a world where GMs suddenly don't fear the $$ on his deal

What I don’t get is why you would have feared his contract to begin with. It’s a very fair deal.

 

[Spektre]

What I don’t get is why you would have feared his contract to begin with. It’s a very fair deal.

Especially with the cap going up exponentially over the next 3 years

 

[HighNote]

Especially with the cap going up exponentially over the next 3 years

Ya I mean, even before that, like right now it’s a fair deal.

 

[PocketNines]

What I don’t get is why you would have feared his contract to begin with. It’s a very fair deal.

Some guys on fair deals I would want to build around and some guys on fair deals I wouldn't.

With Kyrou I don't think it's negative value in his contract as much as I personally don't feel fully comfortable and solid with him.

I have to question, with the potential cap increase over the next 3 years, does that change your mind at all?

That’s a decent commitment. But for a guy that’s essentially a PPG winger who is making improvements off puck/focus wise I feel like that’s the cap commitment you will start making to very good 3rd line players or low end 2nd liners to try and fill a gap on the market.

Our cap structure is set up beautifully after the Faulk/Krug contracts expire. And it’s set up beautifully by having Parayko/Thomas/Kyrou at remarkably low rates comparative to what you’re going to see on the open market going forward.

The cap going up makes me think he's got more value in trade as well as more value on the Blues. I'm just not sold on him is all

 

[HighNote]

Some guys on fair deals I would want to build around and some guys on fair deals I wouldn't.

With Kyrou I don't think it's negative value in his contract as much as I personally don't feel fully comfortable and solid with him.

To me, he’s a high end complimentary piece. He’s not a foundational piece like Thomas is, but he’s in that next tier. You do need those types of players, the Perron’s and Schwartz’s of the world.

 

[PocketNines]

To me, he’s a high end complimentary piece. He’s not a foundational piece like Thomas is, but he’s in that next tier. You do need those types of players, the Perron’s and Schwartz’s of the world.

I agree he's a high end complimentary piece. I agree he is in the Perron/Schwartz category of player, but I'm just as certain having watched all three players throughout their careers that I would pick both 57 and 17 before 25. I trust who Perron and Schwartz are as competitors before I trust Kyrou. Competitiveness is the difference maker. Consider the competitiveness factor at 1C, 1D and 1G we had for the Cup. That quality compared with 1C, 1D and 1G who are on fair deals but aren't as personally competitive, I think is the inch between winning and losing, between winning and dying, as per Al Pacino.

For all of the numbers we use to quantify the sport we do not capture "will to win" as much, which is where a lot of the eye test and assessment to supplement the numbers comes in. If that weren't true why would we watch the games when we could never watch them and only track the stats?