Blues 2024 Off-Season Trade Proposals Thread

[BleedBlue14]

As a player I think he would be fine on 3rd pair, but that means krug still with Faulk (which I don’t want). And walman isn’t exactly cheap for 3rd pair. So while it works for sharks I don’t know that it moves needle for us, as it doesn’t address actual area of weakness and costs cap flexibility.

He’s not, but we’re also not extremely committed to him for a long time, and the cost of acquisition is actually a positive net.

We’re going to have cap space, unless we’re really planning on shelling up for higher end guy I can’t imagine a scenario where we’ll hit the cap - unless the front office doesn’t want to reach it which is fine.

I just think anyone we sign to fill in on the hole left by Scandella will at least be 3m for a year or two.

 

[Blueston]

He’s not, but we’re also not extremely committed to him for a long time, and the cost of acquisition is actually a positive net.

We’re going to have cap space, unless we’re really planning on shelling up for higher end guy I can’t imagine a scenario where we’ll hit the cap - unless the front office doesn’t want to reach it which is fine.

I just think anyone we sign to fill in on the hole left by Scandella will at least be 3m for a year or two.

I would strongly prefer we not sign guy like that. Give spot to someone cheap with upside, whether acquired by trade or waiver, if we can’t find true top 4 long term guy. We can take a cap dump up front bc we have more flexibility there, but I don’t place high value on late 2nd so not terribly upset that we passed here.

 

[Majorityof1]

I'm surprised by the Walman trade. I don't think he is great but held his own as a complimentary D on a top pair. He'd be a serviceable 3/4 and at under $4 isn't a bad deal. He is better than Scandella was and we paid a pick to pay him the same amount.

Walman DNP the last several games. I wonder if they are worried about a long term impact for injury.

 

[Drubilly]

Anyone think a Krug and Kotkaniemi swap is realistic?

 

[bleedblue1223]

Maybe. Curious if Krug will reject any place due to family or if he'd waive for a contender.

 

[Drubilly]

I'm assuming Carolina would be a perfect quiet family friendly contender thingy.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I'm assuming Carolina would be a perfect quiet family friendly contender thingy.

His reasoning last year was just moving in general, and I can understand that.

 

[Drubilly]

His reasoning last year was just moving in general, and I can understand that.

Right on

 

[ArenaRat]

His reasoning last year was just moving in general, and I can understand that.

it's also been speculated perhaps he wasn't warm to playing for Torts

 

[BleedBlue14]

His reasoning last year was just moving in general, and I can understand that.

I'd have to imagine if he's asked about being moved 2 years in a row, there would be a lot more willingness for the player to move to a competitive team. I can't imagine the feeling of most of the fanbase clamoring for a move being validated by the front office asking for a move. It's not a great spot to be in for either side really.

Not to mention, I think if there's something truly lined up and Doug is really wanting to cut bait with Krug he'd have to exercise waivers as a possibility at this point. I get not wanting to do it the first time. But twice is essentially moving it into a NMC territory.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't think it's impossible for him to waive, I'm just curious if he would and what teams or cities he'd actually be open to.

 

[Brian39]

This completely hinges on the assumption that he doesn't spend a year in the AHL. If his AHL deal is similar in money to his NIL deal, it would effectively be a wash.

It doesn't. He would burn an ELC year if he spends every day of the 2024/25 season in the AHL. There is no 'must play in the NHL' requirement for him to burn an ELC year if he signs with the Blues in 2024/25.

Burning a year of ELC has real value. If you make the same amount of money in the NCAA as you would have in the AHL but fail fail to burn a year of your ELC, you just delayed your first big NHL pay day by a year. If you are a legit middle 6 (or better) player by the time you are 22 or 23 years old, that decision costs you over $1M in career earnings.

If he doesn't sign an NHL contract by 7/1/25, he delays his first chance to hit RFA and earn a raise by a year. Full stop. NIL money that is a 'wash' to what he'd make on his ELC in the AHL does not offset that.

 

[Brian39]

His reasoning last year was just moving in general, and I can understand that.

That was the public reasoning. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the private reasoning was "I don't want to move in general, but I'd be willing to for the right personal career opportunity." There was no real incentive for Krug to make it known publicly that something about Philly caused him to exercise his NTC, but that he's still open to other locations.

I very much believe that Krug wasn't looking to get out of St. Louis last summer/fall. I very much believe it is a truthful statement that he just didn't want to move in general. But I don't take that to mean that he was wholly unwilling to move in any circumstance.

I'd be pretty surprised if he weren't willing to waive for at least a few markets/teams. Not sold that any of those places have any interest, but I don't believe that there are 31 teams that he'd exercise his NTC.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

Anyone think a Krug and Kotkaniemi swap is realistic?

I like this idea for both sides, would be thrilled if it happened. Kotkaniemi is overpaid but for the entirety of that contract he doesnt hit the typical age regression years. Helps bridge us to Dvorsky at 2C in the short-term, and even if were over paying him the last few years as a 3C, its a cap-increasing environment and wouldnt be unmanageable.

 

[LGB]

I’d prefer to keep the 3 year bad contract rather than exchange it for a 6 year one

 

[MissouriMook]

Anyone think a Krug and Kotkaniemi swap is realistic?

I still think a Krug-Pageau swap makes sense for both teams, even if we have to retain some money (10%?) to make it work. The Isles could certainly use some help with their PP and I would much rather see a guy like Pageau at 3C than Hayes or Schenn. Gets us out from under the contract a year earlier and Pageau is more likely to be movable in a deadline deal for a small return.

 

[Brian39]

I’d prefer to keep the 3 year bad contract rather than exchange it for a 6 year one

I'm far less sold that Kotkaniemi is a 'bad' contract than I am with Krug. This year was a disaster for him, but it's no secret that his coach hates his game and in his first 2 years in Carolina he scored at a 16 goal and 39 point pace in (barely) 3rd line and PP2 usage. He got heavy sheltering, but he also has very good underlying possession/chance metrics.

His AAV is currently bad for a team trying to win right now. There are better ways to spend $4.8M than a young center who hasn't/can't/won't put it all together. It's a worse AAV if the coach also very clearly doesn't believe he can succeed in the system. But generally speaking, I'm not convinced that he won't become worth that AAV, especially if he can spend his age 24 season making mistakes in an expanded role.

I think he is a Fairly safe bet to be at least a replacement-level 3C for a good chunk of the remaining contract. If he hits that level, it's not a bad contract. It might not be a good contract, but it's not a bad one.

Krug's contract is a bad one. I think he has virtually no chance of being a $6.5M player for any remaining season of the 3 that are left. He has greater trade protection than Kotkaniemi. His $8.5M salary this year is only slightly less than what Kotkaniemi will make in the next 2 seasons combined ($9.64M).

Krug's contract is much, much further down the scale of 'bad' than Kotkaniemi's, so I don't think it is as simple as just wanting the 3 year deal over the 6 year deal. I see way more upside to Kotkaniemi than Krug and even if he doesn't reach that upside, I view the 'dead' cap per year for Kotkaniemi as being much smaller than the dead cap per year on Krug.

I get what you're saying and I wouldn't be jumping for joy if we swapped Krug for Kotkaniemi. But I would like it.

 

[LGB]

I'm far less sold that Kotkaniemi is a 'bad' contract than I am with Krug. This year was a disaster for him, but it's no secret that his coach hates his game and in his first 2 years in Carolina he scored at a 16 goal and 39 point pace in (barely) 3rd line and PP2 usage. He got heavy sheltering, but he also has very good underlying possession/chance metrics.

His AAV is currently bad for a team trying to win right now. There are better ways to spend $4.8M than a young center who hasn't/can't/won't put it all together. It's a worse AAV if the coach also very clearly doesn't believe he can succeed in the system. But generally speaking, I'm not convinced that he won't become worth that AAV, especially if he can spend his age 24 season making mistakes in an expanded role.

I think he is a Fairly safe bet to be at least a replacement-level 3C for a good chunk of the remaining contract. If he hits that level, it's not a bad contract. It might not be a good contract, but it's not a bad one.

Krug's contract is a bad one. I think he has virtually no chance of being a $6.5M player for any remaining season of the 3 that are left. He has greater trade protection than Kotkaniemi. His $8.5M salary this year is only slightly less than what Kotkaniemi will make in the next 2 seasons combined ($9.64M).

Krug's contract is much, much further down the scale of 'bad' than Kotkaniemi's, so I don't think it is as simple as just wanting the 3 year deal over the 6 year deal. I see way more upside to Kotkaniemi than Krug and even if he doesn't reach that upside, I view the 'dead' cap per year for Kotkaniemi as being much smaller than the dead cap per year on Krug.

I get what you're saying and I wouldn't be jumping for joy if we swapped Krug for Kotkaniemi. But I would like it.

We don't really need Krug to be a 6.5m player right now, we aren't contending. We might be in those 3 extra years we're taking on in Kotkaniemi's contract. Also Kotkaniemi has a 10 team no trade list that begins in 25/26 so starting then he'll have slightly more trade protection than Krug. I'm not an expert on the player but I don't see much upside in Kotkaniemi. Seems like a grinder.

 

[Blueston]

We don't really need Krug to be a 6.5m player right now, we aren't contending. We might be in those 3 extra years we're taking on in Kotkaniemi's contract. Also Kotkaniemi has a 10 team no trade list that begins in 25/26 so starting then he'll have slightly more trade protection than Krug. I'm not an expert on the player but I don't see much upside in Kotkaniemi. Seems like a grinder.

You raise a valid concern. To me, it comes down to do we think that Kotkaniemi is guy we actually WANT in our top 9 for next 6 years. If we think he is t least a quality 3c then I am fine with longterm conrract, but if we think we are trading one bad for another I agree that we don't want to go longer.

 

[Mike Liut]

I’d rather have Dvorsky and Dean as our 2C and 3C and move out Krug another way. Also, Krug isn’t as bad as people say. That dude plays his balls off night in and night out.

 

[I3LI3]

diehard cbj fan here.

this is so random lol but last night I had a dream that I met Laine and he was wearing a blues (home) jersey.

if he somehow ends up on your team someday, i’ll be freaked out. lol

 

[tfriede2]

diehard cbj fan here.

this is so random lol but last night I had a dream that I met Laine and he was wearing a blues (home) jersey.

if he somehow ends up on your team someday, i’ll be freaked out. lol

We’d be freaked out to see Laine in a Blues jersey, too!

 

[Quaz]

We’d be freaked out to see Laine in a Blues jersey, too!

What is CBJ going to do if Brindley and Dumais are both NHL ready next season? They are loaded with prospects. It will be interesting to see what Waddell does this offseason. Buchnevich would be a good fit in Columbus.

 

[WeWentBlues]

We’d be freaked out to see Laine in a Blues jersey, too!

I'm somewhat intrigued to see Laine paired with Thomas but only as a buy low candidate and preferably with salary retention.

 

[Blueston]

I'm somewhat intrigued to see Laine paired with Thomas but only as a buy low candidate and preferably with salary retention.

Perhaps krug likes Columbus?