Blues 2024 Off-Season Trade Proposals Thread

[Ted Hoffman]

That would be an interesting question: would Faulk waive his NTC to go somewhere? That raises question about the direction of the team for '24-25, depending on the return, but I think we'd all agree we'd rather move Krug and put someone else there and have Faulk on the roster than move Faulk, even if it's for someone that replaces him, and still have Krug.

But Faulk is 32 (tomorrow), 2 seasons removed from a season where he got a couple Norris Trophy votes, and signed for 3 more seasons. I can see him being tough to move not because of his salary, but because of who might taken him for that salary not being compatible with who he'd waive his NTC for.

 

[STL fan in MN]

If the Blues move Faulk they better have a really good plan to replace him. To me, Krug is the obvious weak link. It’s either him or bust IMO. If we can’t trade him then I’d still try to add a decent LD and then Krug and Perunovich can compete for the 3LD role/7th d-man. Or if not Perunovich, then some other d-man making near league minimum.

 

[Spektre]

Faulk just looks like he's checked out. I'd wonder if Buffalo would be interested if he'd wave his NTC

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I think the very worst scenario is that both Krug and Faulk back next year. But the Very next year Their NTCs turn into 15 team NTCs.

If the Blues keep the current team together (which would be the absolutely wrong move imho) they have around 13 mil available. And I see one of Bolduc or Snuggy taking the 3rd Line RW slot. So that's basically 12 mil to fill 2nd line C and 1/2 LHD. So having both of them on the team would not be the end of the world but not ideal, especially when they really isn't many UFAs this off season that we want to pay big bucks to.

 

[Mike Liut]

Nobody is taking Faulk or Krug without a sweetener, and I’m not interested in trading away assets. Just my opinion of course

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Where I get concerned at looking at the 2nd line spot and the defense spot: there's few options out there in free agency already, and there will be fewer before we get to July 1. And, then we'll have to outbid other teams for that guy. And, all the contract restrictions Armstrong imposes on guys. If we go that route, I sense a real chance to overpay for a guy to "fill" today's needs that handcuffs us in a few years.

If we're going to fill those spots, IMO it's going to have to be via trade and saying "well, Snuggerud is off limits, and so is Dvorsky, and so is Bolduc, and so is Neighbours, and so is ..." is going to leave us with not a lot to trade really quickly. I think you have to look at one of them and say "I would f***ing hate to move him, but if it fills [spot in the lineup] for the next 5-7 years, I'll do it" and see who's interested and who they've got that we might want.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Where I get concerned at looking at the 2nd line spot and the defense spot: there's few options out there in free agency already, and there will be fewer before we get to July 1. And, then we'll have to outbid other teams for that guy. And, all the contract restrictions Armstrong imposes on guys. If we go that route, I sense a real chance to overpay for a guy to "fill" today's needs that handcuffs us in a few years.

If we're going to fill those spots, IMO it's going to have to be via trade and saying "well, Snuggerud is off limits, and so is Dvorsky, and so is Bolduc, and so is Neighbours, and so is ..." is going to leave us with not a lot to trade really quickly. I think you have to look at one of them and say "I would f***ing hate to move him, but if it fills [spot in the lineup] for the next 5-7 years, I'll do it" and see who's interested and who they've got that we might want.

I think they’re more likely to go the trade route than the UFA route too but it’d have to be a really good player to justify trading away one of our top 5-6 prospects IMO.

There should be teams that need to trade salary to get under the Cap and thus the player gets traded for below market value. That’s the type of situation I think Army should be targeting. I doubt he finds a deal as good as Buch for a 2nd and Blais but all they really need is a stop-gap for 2-3 years while the kids develop and that really shouldn’t be a player that costs a ton.

 

[Majorityof1]

Where I get concerned at looking at the 2nd line spot and the defense spot: there's few options out there in free agency already, and there will be fewer before we get to July 1. And, then we'll have to outbid other teams for that guy. And, all the contract restrictions Armstrong imposes on guys. If we go that route, I sense a real chance to overpay for a guy to "fill" today's needs that handcuffs us in a few years.

If we're going to fill those spots, IMO it's going to have to be via trade and saying "well, Snuggerud is off limits, and so is Dvorsky, and so is Bolduc, and so is Neighbours, and so is ..." is going to leave us with not a lot to trade really quickly. I think you have to look at one of them and say "I would f***ing hate to move him, but if it fills [spot in the lineup] for the next 5-7 years, I'll do it" and see who's interested and who they've got that we might want.

I can see us dumpster diving. Taking on short term bad contracts for guys that may be able to kinda fill the roles we need. Just like Hayes. Low acquisition cost, or even we can get paid for taking the player. Or picking up a UFA on day 6 that was squeezed out of a long term deal.

This will kick the can down the road to see if our prospects blossom, and it may allow us to gain assets by retaining and moving at the deadline.

I can't see Armstrong wanting to pay UFA price for a 27+ player for UFA term. We will absolutely explore the trade route, but there may not be deals for what we are willing to pay.

 

[TheOrganist]

Faulk is fine for what he brings when healthy and away from Krug. I don’t know too many people that soured on him before this year. You open up an even bigger hole on the blue line without him. Krug is the black hole.

 

[simon IC]

Trade Faulk and sign Pesce?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think they’re more likely to go the trade route than the UFA route too but it’d have to be a really good player to justify trading away one of our top 5-6 prospects IMO.

That's my fear, people overvalue a prospect because of their fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuture to the point they'd rather have the kid than a guy with a some experience, who can help accelerate reopening the Cup window and push us toward the elite tier.

There should be teams that need to trade salary to get under the Cap and thus the player gets traded for below market value. That’s the type of situation I think Army should be targeting. I doubt he finds a deal as good as Buch for a 2nd and Blais but all they really need is a stop-gap for 2-3 years while the kids develop and that really shouldn’t be a player that costs a ton.

I won't disagree with that, but I think some of that is going to take time to materialize because everyone will have extra cap space so there won't be nearly the rush for teams to dump. Plus, I suspect there will be other teams that also have cap space that can take on contracts too.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Nobody is taking Faulk or Krug without a sweetener, and I’m not interested in trading away assets. Just my opinion of course

why would we pay to move them? we might take back other bad contracts to move guy like krug, but we have plenty of cap space so no point in giving up assets to get rid of guys who we still rely upon.

 

[Mike Liut]

why would we pay to move them? we might take back other bad contracts to move guy like krug, but we have plenty of cap space so no point in giving up assets to get rid of guys who we still rely upon.

Do we really want another shitty contract in return?

 

[Brockon]

Do we really want another shitty contract in return?

Are you willing to pay premium assets to move Krug to a destination he'll actually waive his NTC to go to?

Because we either take cap back or pay significant assets to move a contract like Krug. Krug may not be the absolutely terrible player he's labelled here, but he's not a high positive value asset when ignoring the contract, let alone when considering the contract.

A bad contract swap is likely the only path forward that doesn't cost us high value assets we should not be parting with in the middle of this re-whatever phase.

 

[oPlaiD]

why would we pay to move them? we might take back other bad contracts to move guy like krug, but we have plenty of cap space so no point in giving up assets to get rid of guys who we still rely upon.

Yeah, I'm kind of at the point where I almost don't care what happens with Faulk and Krug. Sure, they're under contract for 3 more years after this one, but the cap is rising and they'll be off the roster by the time our cost-controlled talent are key contributors, but before Thomas and Kyrou need their next contracts.

Sure they're kind of clogging up the roster, but if the Blues actually have the chance to acquire a defenseman who does fit the window then we can get a little more desperate with how we address them. At this point I don't think they're really an obstacle towards accomplishing any of our real franchise goals because of where our window looks to be.

Granted, Armstrong's rhetoric around this season and the deadline makes it feel like he has more urgency to get something done sooner, but I don't think he's as desperate as some seem to think here. And I don't think we really should be desperate to get it done at the cost of useful things.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Trade Faulk and sign Pesce?

I don’t see Pesce being a good target due to age and what he’s likely to get offered in the UFA market.

 

[Mike Liut]

Are you willing to pay premium assets to move Krug to a destination he'll actually waive his NTC to go to?

Because we either take cap back or pay significant assets to move a contract like Krug. Krug may not be the absolutely terrible player he's labelled here, but he's not a high positive value asset when ignoring the contract, let alone when considering the contract.

A bad contract swap is likely the only path forward that doesn't cost us high value assets we should not be parting with in the middle of this re-whatever phase.

That’s what I said above. I’m not paying assets to move him and I also don’t want a shitty contract in return. I’d rather keep him and Krug for now. We aren’t ready to compete, so there’s no reason to get carried away.

 

[TK 421]

Lindstein's contract with Brynas only runs through this season so I'm wondering if the Blues might view this as an opportunity to get him ice time at the AHL level in '24-'25 or if he extends with Brynas. I'd only want him staying at most one more year in Sweden anyway so if he skips that to play in Springfield he's just moving the timetable up a year in my mind. Being drafted from a European team means he can play in the AHL at 19 if the Blues want him there so I'll be paying attention to see what happens there.

In no way am I suggesting him as an immediate solution but his contract status led me down the 'what if' rabbit hole and he is part of the gradual change that will happen at some point.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Lindstein's contract with Brynas only runs through this season so I'm wondering if the Blues might view this as an opportunity to get him ice time at the AHL level in '24-'25 or if he extends with Brynas. I'd only want him staying at most one more year in Sweden anyway so if he skips that to play in Springfield he's just moving the timetable up a year in my mind. Being drafted from a European team means he can play in the AHL at 19 if the Blues want him there so I'll be paying attention to see what happens there.

In no way am I suggesting him as an immediate solution but his contract status led me down the 'what if' rabbit hole and he is part of the gradual change that will happen at some point.

I also think the Blues want him playing in the WJC next year as well.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Lindstein's contract with Brynas only runs through this season so I'm wondering if the Blues might view this as an opportunity to get him ice time at the AHL level in '24-'25 or if he extends with Brynas. I'd only want him staying at most one more year in Sweden anyway so if he skips that to play in Springfield he's just moving the timetable up a year in my mind. Being drafted from a European team means he can play in the AHL at 19 if the Blues want him there so I'll be paying attention to see what happens there.

In no way am I suggesting him as an immediate solution but his contract status led me down the 'what if' rabbit hole and he is part of the gradual change that will happen at some point.

i would think we would want him to spend next year in shl. i don't know that i want him in ahl yet. he needs to bulk up and ahl is more physical league than he may be ready for. i would expect that finding him shl team shouldn't be an issue, but after dvo..

 

[TK 421]

i would think we would want him to spend next year in shl. i don't know that i want him in ahl yet. he needs to bulk up and ahl is more physical league than he may be ready for. i would expect that finding him shl team shouldn't be an issue, but after dvo..

Initially I thought he'd be in Sweden through '24-'25 not realizing his contract ended after the '23-'24 season. As to his readiness for the AHL from a physicality standpoint I couldn't say, the contract status led me to wonder how the Blues might view the situation. Of course Brynas could extend him a season or two with a built in option for the Blues to bring him here when they want but I don't care if he's in Allsvenskan or SHL as they're both quality leagues. My preference would be playing '24-'25 for Brynas but I can see the allure of wanting him in Springfield instead if the Blues feel he's closer and being in the AHL will get him to STL sooner. As you said that may be too much, too soon though and that's to be avoided so will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I’m confused why Faulk gets lumped together with Krug in discussions about the urgency to move him. It’s much easier to see Faulk in a successful role. He can be overpaid and still part of an improved defense.

 

[Stealth JD]

Are our prospects really so can’t miss that we wouldn’t trade any of them for the right target? If Snuggy or Dvorsky got traded that’s a good use of assets, provided the guy that came back was a core piece and the prospects that weren’t traded developed into players. I’d trade Dvorsky for a stud, especially if we thought Stenberg and Dean were progressing. Likewise, do the Blues really need both Snuggy & Bolduc? Maybe Vorobyev or Susuyev exceed expectations and become scoring wingers in a couple of years.

All it takes is a guy like Kaskimaki or Robertsson stepping up to make one of the top-5 forward prospects expendable. I actually hope Army decides to move one or two of those guys; fitting them all onto the NHL roster is a good way to become the Senators or Sabres.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Initially I thought he'd be in Sweden through '24-'25 not realizing his contract ended after the '23-'24 season. As to his readiness for the AHL from a physicality standpoint I couldn't say, the contract status led me to wonder how the Blues might view the situation. Of course Brynas could extend him a season or two with a built in option for the Blues to bring him here when they want but I don't care if he's in Allsvenskan or SHL as they're both quality leagues. My preference would be playing '24-'25 for Brynas but I can see the allure of wanting him in Springfield instead if the Blues feel he's closer and being in the AHL will get him to STL sooner. As you said that may be too much, too soon though and that's to be avoided so will be interesting to see how it goes.

The NHL has a transfer agreement with Sweden. The Blues just throw some money to Brynas and whatever contracts Lindstein has doesn’t matter. ie. his contract status over in Sweden doesn’t matter. He’ll come over when both he and the Blues want him to.

As for playing Allsvenskan vs SHL, he could very well play SHL next season and stay with Brynas. They finished 1st with a 38-11-3 record. The process is a little convoluted but 2 teams get promoted to the SHL while the bottom 2 SHL teams get relegated. They’re currently in the middle of the playoffs currently. Pretty good chance Brynas earns one of the two promotion spots.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Are our prospects really so can’t miss that we wouldn’t trade any of them for the right target? If Snuggy or Dvorsky got traded that’s a good use of assets, provided the guy that came back was a core piece and the prospects that weren’t traded developed into players. I’d trade Dvorsky for a stud, especially if we thought Stenberg and Dean were progressing. Likewise, do the Blues really need both Snuggy & Bolduc? Maybe Vorobyev or Susuyev exceed expectations and become scoring wingers in a couple of years.

All it takes is a guy like Kaskimaki or Robertsson stepping up to make one of the top-5 forward prospects expendable. I actually hope Army decides to move one or two of those guys; fitting them all onto the NHL roster is a good way to become the Senators or Sabres.

I've advocated for this approach for a while now. Going into a season where the forward corps is something like Thomas, Kyrou, Snuggerud, Neighbours, Dvorsky, Dean, Stenberg, Bolduc and Stenberg and then 3 throw-ins on the 4th line sounds great because of all that long-alleged scoring talent, but there's still only 1 puck and still only 60 minutes in the game. Rolling 3 lines going 17-18 minutes a night and then lobbing the 4th line in for PK and when everyone needs a breather isn't a practical plan.

We can't say that 4, 5, 6 of those guys after Thomas and Kyrou are untouchable. Prioritize who you really have to keep, look at the others and say crap, I'd really hate to lose them but if we're trying to improve the team I'd get over it and make moves accordingly.