Around the NHL 2023-2024

[542365]

Dunn is better than any Dman in the Blues organization, and not by a little unless Faulk has a major rebound season.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Dunn is better than any Dman in the Blues organization, and not by a little unless Faulk has a major rebound season.

Last year he was. But he has never played at that level previously, and our guys had never been that bad. I’d rather have Faulk or Parayko for next 4 years than Dunn.

 

[Reality Czech]

Dunn is better than any Dman in the Blues organization, and not by a little unless Faulk has a major rebound season.

Or unless Dunn falls back to the level he was at before last season. But considering he's making $800k more than anyone on our roster, he should be better. He'll have to repeat what he did last year for me to consider him a legit 1D and even then it's hard to see him being the best D-man on a Cup winning team. Maybe he'll prove it, we'll see.

 

[LGB]

Dunn's age 26-29 seasons or Faulk's 31-34 seasons? It's a pretty easy decision I think. Parayko you can make an argument for based on the usage he gets, but Dunn's offense is so valuable. The point is it was incredibly stupid to give him away for free.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Dunn's age 26-29 seasons or Faulk's 31-34 seasons? It's a pretty easy decision I think. Parayko you can make an argument for based on the usage he gets, but Dunn's offense is so valuable. The point is it was incredibly stupid to give him away for free.

they didn't give him away for free. everyone lost a player and he was ours. they apparently tried to deal him before draft and best they could get was a 3rd, so they decided better to lose him and keep next guy on list than gain a 3rd.

 

[Celtic Note]

Last year he was. But he has never played at that level previously, and our guys had never been that bad. I’d rather have Faulk or Parayko for next 4 years than Dunn.

I certainly wouldn’t have Krug over Dunn.

they didn't give him away for free. everyone lost a player and he was ours. they apparently tried to deal him before draft and best they could get was a 3rd, so they decided better to lose him and keep next guy on list than gain a 3rd.

They may have tried to move him, but the right decision was to either not sign Krug or not protect him for the expansion draft and use his spot on Dunn. That was a terribly short sighted decision by Army.

 

[joe galiba]

I certainly wouldn’t have Krug over Dunn.


They may have tried to move him, but the right decision was to either not sign Krug or not protect him for the expansion draft and use his spot on Dunn. That was a terribly short sighted decision by Army.

except, of course, that Dunn didn’t have a very good year before the expansion draft and Krug was a know quantity that played well the same year (and his second year as well)

 

[Celtic Note]

except, of course, that Dunn didn’t have a very good year before the expansion draft and Krug was a know quantity that played well the same year (and his second year as well)

Like I stated elsewhere. It was shortsighted.

 

[Xerloris]

Like I stated elsewhere. It was shortsighted.

Ah yes, the good old perfect hindsight making you seem like you have some type expert knowledge that Armstrong does not.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

So, has Tarasenko agreed to a deal that needs to allow some LTIR magic before there is room for him? I think he can still help a lot of teams, but the Cap crunch timing hurts him. I’m sure he envisioned a much bigger contract than what he’s been offered.

 

[Celtic Note]

Ah yes, the good old perfect hindsight making you seem like you have some type expert knowledge that Armstrong does not.

I made posts on this at the time.

 

[oPlaiD]

No one needed expert knowledge to have the opinion Armstrong not protecting Dunn was a big mistake. Unless dozens of posters here are experts, because that was not an uncommon opinion at the time.

 

[stlbluz]

So, has Tarasenko agreed to a deal that needs to allow some LTIR magic before there is room for him? I think he can still help a lot of teams, but the Cap crunch timing hurts him. I’m sure he envisioned a much bigger contract than what he’s been offered.

He's not going to get the $$ or term that I'm sure he's hoping for. Probably going to have to settle on a 'prove it' 1 yr & actually play both sides of the puck in order to get a final payday once the cap goes up. It's going to be interesting to say the least.

 

[Brian39]

Ah yes, the good old perfect hindsight making you seem like you have some type expert knowledge that Armstrong does not.

A not-small portion of this board (and I'm 90% sure @Celtic Note was among us) was critical of signing Krug instead of trying Dunn in that role as soon as Krug was signed. The existence of Dunn (with 4 more years of team control) and 22 year old Perunovich (with 6 more years of team control) in the organization was precisely the argument against giving Krug $6.5M x 7 years to take all of the sheltered offensive minutes and PP1 time in the summer of 2020.

People have been critical of the organization not giving Dunn more opportunities in the top 4 since 2019/20. The Faulk acquisition (and subsequent experiments sliding him onto the left side to fit in our three top 4 RHD) left Dunn without a clear role. He struggled to produce, but still put up fantastic underlying numbers on a good team. Petro leaving solidified the right side and created a clear opening in the top 4 on the left side (and on the top PP unit). Lots of us thought that allowing Dunn to fill that role on his bridge deal (and spending $4.65M elsewhere) was a better use of cap dollars than giving Krug $6.5M for 2020/21.

Let's not act like the thought of using Dunn in the top 4 offensive LHD role instead of Krug was some unheard of notion that only looked possible with hindsight. It was heavily discussed here before a single game was played in 2020/21 and there were people saying that exposing Krug and protecting Dunn was a better use of cap space leading up to the expansion draft.

Realistically, there was no chance that Army was going to expose Krug after giving him a 7 year deal less than a year earlier. Long-term plans/opinions/thoughts don't change overnight. But that doesn't mean people here weren't arguing that it would be the right thing to do.

 

[Brian39]

I like the Dunn contract for both sides. 4 years is a decent bit of risk-mitigation from the team following a single breakout year and it lets the player bet on himself to cash in as a UFA before turning 30. Seattle's cap structure makes the AAV a complete non-issue and I think the $7.35M number is pretty fair. A touch higher than I'd like, but the term and lack of 'old' years makes up for that.

I would 100% want Dunn at $7.35M for the next 4 years over Krug at $6.5M for the next 4 years. I will be shocked if Krug is a better player than Dunn in any of those seasons. Krug might outproduce him (doubtful), but the gap in play everywhere else is enormous in Dunn's favor. I'd wager that 32 of 32 teams would want Dunn's deal over the rest of Krug's deal.

I'm less sure I'd want Dunn at $7.35M for the next 4 years over Faulk at $6.5M for the next 4 years. That decision is impacted by what the rest of your D looks like and what your competitive window looks like. The age is wildly in Dunn's favor, but Faulk is a better fit for any team that already has a PP QB taking offensive usage at 5 on 5.

 

[Vektor]

Dunn is better than any Dman in the Blues organization, and not by a little unless Faulk has a major rebound season.

For one season. You can say this when he has multiple seasons like last year.

 

[Celtic Note]

A not-small portion of this board (and I'm 90% sure @Celtic Note was among us) was critical of signing Krug instead of trying Dunn in that role as soon as Krug was signed. The existence of Dunn (with 4 more years of team control) and 22 year old Perunovich (with 6 more years of team control) in the organization was precisely the argument against giving Krug $6.5M x 7 years to take all of the sheltered offensive minutes and PP1 time in the summer of 2020.

People have been critical of the organization not giving Dunn more opportunities in the top 4 since 2019/20. The Faulk acquisition (and subsequent experiments sliding him onto the left side to fit in our three top 4 RHD) left Dunn without a clear role. He struggled to produce, but still put up fantastic underlying numbers on a good team. Petro leaving solidified the right side and created a clear opening in the top 4 on the left side (and on the top PP unit). Lots of us thought that allowing Dunn to fill that role on his bridge deal (and spending $4.65M elsewhere) was a better use of cap dollars than giving Krug $6.5M for 2020/21.

Let's not act like the thought of using Dunn in the top 4 offensive LHD role instead of Krug was some unheard of notion that only looked possible with hindsight. It was heavily discussed here before a single game was played in 2020/21 and there were people saying that exposing Krug and protecting Dunn was a better use of cap space leading up to the expansion draft.

Realistically, there was no chance that Army was going to expose Krug after giving him a 7 year deal less than a year earlier. Long-term plans/opinions/thoughts don't change overnight. But that doesn't mean people here weren't arguing that it would be the right thing to do.

I like the Dunn contract for both sides. 4 years is a decent bit of risk-mitigation from the team following a single breakout year and it lets the player bet on himself to cash in as a UFA before turning 30. Seattle's cap structure makes the AAV a complete non-issue and I think the $7.35M number is pretty fair. A touch higher than I'd like, but the term and lack of 'old' years makes up for that.

I would 100% want Dunn at $7.35M for the next 4 years over Krug at $6.5M for the next 4 years. I will be shocked if Krug is a better player than Dunn in any of those seasons. Krug might outproduce him (doubtful), but the gap in play everywhere else is enormous in Dunn's favor. I'd wager that 32 of 32 teams would want Dunn's deal over the rest of Krug's deal.

I'm less sure I'd want Dunn at $7.35M for the next 4 years over Faulk at $6.5M for the next 4 years. That decision is impacted by what the rest of your D looks like and what your competitive window looks like. The age is wildly in Dunn's favor, but Faulk is a better fit for any team that already has a PP QB taking offensive usage at 5 on 5.

Agreed on both posts!

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Ah yes, the good old perfect hindsight making you seem like you have some type expert knowledge that Armstrong does not.

There were plenty of people here who didn’t want Krug because we already had Dunn. More than just a few in fact.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

For one season. You can say this when he has multiple seasons like last year.

There were plenty of signs that suggested that Dunn would become a damn good defenseman. A lot of data made it clear that partners who played with Dunn experienced better production and overall play when paired with Dunn. He's had plenty of good seasons.

Last year was his coming out party. And frankly, it shouldn't have been surprising he would play at a high level. This isn't a Tage Thompson situation. This was a situation in which Armstrong wanted the known quantity of Krug and not trust the development of Dunn.

 

[Reality Czech]

There were plenty of signs that suggested that Dunn would become a damn good defenseman. A lot of data made it clear that partners who played with Dunn experienced better production and overall play when paired with Dunn. He's had plenty of good seasons.

Last year was his coming out party. And frankly, it shouldn't have been surprising he would play at a high level. This isn't a Tage Thompson situation. This was a situation in which Armstrong wanted the known quantity of Krug and not trust the development of Dunn.

That's all fine and dandy, but you can't act like it was a sure thing. Dunn made quite a few defensive gaffes and needed to be sheltered when he was with the Blues. I still think he's only average defensively, though he may improve in that regard. He's not ideal as a PP1QB as I've never seen him as an elite passer/playmaker. Seattle's power play was 12th worst in the league (slightly better than ours) and as I've said elsewhere Dunn somehow didn't get a single PP goal all year despite averaging 2:50 on the power play.

He is definitely an exciting player with a lot of skill, and he's got a mean streak which is always nice for a d-man. But people need to pump the brakes as if Dunn is a legit star 1D after one very strong season. A young team with cap space can afford to gamble on a guy like Dunn, but a few years ago the Blues weren't in the same position. Obviously in hindsight I think everyone would prefer Dunn to Krug, but we have to see how Dunn progresses going forward before deciding if Dunn is actually worth $7.3 million or not.

But all this chest thumping about "I was right about Dunn" really doesn't impress me. Every roster move is a gamble to some degree. You win some, you lose some. One downside of having as much depth as the Blues have had means sometimes you're gonna lose good players. I'm more of a big picture guy myself but to each their own. Hockey is a team sport and replacing Krug with Dunn doesn't magically turn our team into a contender.

 

[Xerloris]

There were plenty of people here who didn’t want Krug because we already had Dunn. More than just a few in fact.

It's not like Any of us were able to voice an opinion before the fact. All anyone did was be reactionary because we didn't keep Pietrangelo and instead signed Krug. At that point many people here were on the "burn Armstrong at the stake" brigade and no matter what he made a mistake. I don't think anyone wanted Krug and I personally liked Dunn and would much rather have had Dunn but let's not pretend that anyone was able to forsee him being a #1 LD on a playoff team at the time this all happened which is what CERTAIN people here are doing.

 

[Brian39]

He is definitely an exciting player with a lot of skill, and he's got a mean streak which is always nice for a d-man. But people need to pump the brakes as if Dunn is a legit star 1D after one very strong season. A young team with cap space can afford to gamble on a guy like Dunn, but a few years ago the Blues weren't in the same position. Obviously in hindsight I think everyone would prefer Dunn to Krug, but we have to see how Dunn progresses going forward before deciding if Dunn is actually worth $7.3 million or not.

He's not making legit star 1D money. $7.35M gives him the 25th highest AAV among NHL D men. That $7.35M AAV is 8.8% of the cap. 26 D men signed deals that were for a greater percentage of the cap when they signed the contract.

He's also didn't get legit star 1D term. He is 1 of just 4 guys among the top 40 highest paid D that didn't get a 6+ year contract. The other 3 were all 31 or older when they began their non-long term contracts.

His AAV is low end 1D money and he didn't get anything close to the total dollars that legit star 1Ds get. There are 32 NHL D men currently playing on contracts worth $50M+ total dollars. Dunn got $29.4M total dollars.

No matter how you slice it, his contract is just not close to a legit star 1D contract. I wouldn't describe it as a legit 1D contract. It is a low-end 1D cap hit with 2nd pair term and structure. When we are talking about whether he proves to be worth this contract, being a star 1D, legit 1D, or the best D on a Cup winner isn't a relevant consideration. The contract doesn't pay him like any of those things.

 

[Brian39]

It's not like Any of us were able to voice an opinion before the fact. All anyone did was be reactionary because we didn't keep Pietrangelo and instead signed Krug. At that point many people here were on the "burn Armstrong at the stake" brigade and no matter what he made a mistake. I don't think anyone wanted Krug and I personally liked Dunn and would much rather have had Dunn but let's not pretend that anyone was able to forsee him being a #1 LD on a playoff team at the time this all happened which is what CERTAIN people here are doing.

Nonsense. Just because you didn't like what people were saying doesn't make what they were saying reactionary or brigading.

There was an enormous amount of rational, well reasoned discussion for months surrounding the long-term plan for the defense well before the 2020 offseason. It was by far the biggest discussion point around here after the Cup celebration died down in the summer of 2019. It ramped up when we traded for and extended Faulk in September of 2019 and Dunn was a major part of these conversations.

The notion that we should utilize Dunn as a cost-controlled (and still developing) #4 D man was absolutely brought up with regularity. The idea that we should expand Dunn's role was a frequent topic of discussion. And then when we signed Krug, the fact that we could (and many argued should) have given Dunn the minutes that would soon be going to Krug for way less money was a frequent point of criticism. Just because you dismissed all that as blind Army hate doesn't mean it didn't happen or wasn't valid criticism.

You can't dismiss all criticism as blind Army hate and then pretend like no one could have rational discussion because all people did was react to hating Army. That's nonsense.

Dunn had a damn good first 2 NHL seasons and followed it up with a good 3rd season. People act like he was a disaster in 2019/20 because he only had 23 points, but he had excellent possession numbers, +/-, and expected +/-. I didn't expect him to ever finish 11th in Norris voting, but his reasonable ceiling going back to 2019 was absolutely that he could be a good top 4 offensive D man. You didn't have to write him in pen as a 23+ minute a night 60+ point D man to be of the opinion that we should have given him more opportunity to grow here.

 

[Xerloris]

Nonsense. Just because you didn't like what people were saying doesn't make what they were saying reactionary or brigading.

There was an enormous amount of rational, well reasoned discussion for months surrounding the long-term plan for the defense well before the 2020 offseason. It was by far the biggest discussion point around here after the Cup celebration died down in the summer of 2019. It ramped up when we traded for and extended Faulk in September of 2019 and Dunn was a major part of these conversations.

The notion that we should utilize Dunn as a cost-controlled (and still developing) #4 D man was absolutely brought up with regularity. The idea that we should expand Dunn's role was a frequent topic of discussion. And then when we signed Krug, the fact that we could (and many argued should) have given Dunn the minutes that would soon be going to Krug for way less money was a frequent point of criticism. Just because you dismissed all that as blind Army hate doesn't mean it didn't happen or wasn't valid criticism.

You can't dismiss all criticism as blind Army hate and then pretend like no one could have rational discussion because all people did was react to hating Army. That's nonsense.

Dunn had a damn good first 2 NHL seasons and followed it up with a good 3rd season. People act like he was a disaster in 2019/20 because he only had 23 points, but he had excellent possession numbers, +/-, and expected +/-. I didn't expect him to ever finish 11th in Norris voting, but his reasonable ceiling going back to 2019 was absolutely that he could be a good top 4 offensive D man. You didn't have to write him in pen as a 23+ minute a night 60+ point D man to be of the opinion that we should have given him more opportunity to grow here.

Could you tell me which of the "fire Armstrong" posts was legit criticism and not blind hate? Like I said, there still was no Krug vs Dunn debate until after it was done because no one wanted Krug and no one in the world imagined we would even entertain the idea. You're midunderstanding what I am saying. Ofcourse people discussed Dunn, just like we discuss every single Blues player but the Krug vs Dunn debate did not occur until it was to late and done. No one argued against signing Krug because no one knew it was a possibility and yet people are acting like they were some sort of clairvoyant and knew and argued against it since before it happened.

He's not making legit star 1D money. $7.35M gives him the 25th highest AAV among NHL D men. That $7.35M AAV is 8.8% of the cap. 26 D men signed deals that were for a greater percentage of the cap when they signed the contract.

He's also didn't get legit star 1D term. He is 1 of just 4 guys among the top 40 highest paid D that didn't get a 6+ year contract. The other 3 were all 31 or older when they began their non-long term contracts.

His AAV is low end 1D money and he didn't get anything close to the total dollars that legit star 1Ds get. There are 32 NHL D men currently playing on contracts worth $50M+ total dollars. Dunn got $29.4M total dollars.

No matter how you slice it, his contract is just not close to a legit star 1D contract. I wouldn't describe it as a legit 1D contract. It is a low-end 1D cap hit with 2nd pair term and structure. When we are talking about whether he proves to be worth this contract, being a star 1D, legit 1D, or the best D on a Cup winner isn't a relevant consideration. The contract doesn't pay him like any of those things.

I would prefer Dunn at 7.3 what ever he's making over Krug at 6.5 or Pietrangelo at 9.

 

[Brian39]

Could you tell me which of the "fire Armstrong" posts was legit criticism and not blind hate? Like I said, there still was no Krug vs Dunn debate until after it was done because no one wanted Krug and no one in the world imagined we would even entertain the idea. You're midunderstanding what I am saying. Ofcourse people discussed Dunn, just like we discuss every single Blues player but the Krug vs Dunn debate did not occur until it was to late and done. No one argued against signing Krug because no one knew it was a possibility and yet people are acting like they were some sort of clairvoyant and knew and argued against it since before it happened.

The post-Krug-signing criticism of Army was full of legit criticism. A ton of it was based on the (long discussed pre-Krug signing) premise that Dunn could have adequately filled that role for cheap. Here is the timeline of events:

August of 2019-September of 2020: tons of conversation about utilizing Dunn as a cheap top 4 LHD option with yearr of team control.

October 9, 2020: Krug is signed

October 9, 2020-December 2020 (start of training camp): criticism of the contract with people talking about how it would have been better to give Dunn those minutes and spend the extra money elsewhere.

All of that was before anyone ever saw Krug skate in a blue note or saw the player Krug Dunn developed into. It is asinine to pretend that everything after the Krug signing was just blind Army hate and that the people who were discussing these things in 2020 are now pretending like they were clairvoyant. People are saying that they felt it was a mistake as it happened and talked about it as a mistake as it happened.