GDT: Blues @ Kraken| Somehow Only the 2nd Game| 9pm, TNT

[Blueston]

I would, actually. If you have the mortgage the future just to tread water, then you're just wasting time.

We are one of top teams in league. That isn’t treading water.

 

[Majorityof1]

It’s the totality. He’s very good defending 1 on 1. He’s great in transition too. Smart. He can do anything at high level.

1 on 1 except in front of the net. He's a decent size dude but can't defend the net to save our lives. He often gets out of position badly when the other team can set up offense. that might be a team philosophy though as a lot of our D leave the front of the net open to go roam around the boards. Like the first goal tonight with Parayko and Leddy. However, Faulk has always done this even in Carolina.

To me, Faulk is a fine #2 if you have a stud #1 which we don't, and a really good #3 on a contender. But we have 4 guys who are in that same range. guys who could work as a #2 on a middling team if paired with a stud, but are better served as #3s on a contender. Parayko when not making bone head plays is a #2. Unfortunately without a guy to calm him,he makes those more and more.

 

[Chojin]

We are one of top teams in league. That isn’t treading water.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Blueston]

1 on 1 except in front of the net. He's a decent size dude but can't defend the net to save our lives. He often gets out of position badly when the other team can set up offense. that might be a team philosophy though as a lot of our D leave the front of the net open to go roam around the boards. Like the first goal tonight with Parayko and Leddy. However, Faulk has always done this even in Carolina.

To me, Faulk is a fine #2 if you have a stud #1 which we don't, and a really good #3 on a contender. But we have 4 guys who are in that same range. guys who could work as a #2 on a middling team if paired with a stud, but are better served as #3s on a contender. Parayko when not making bone head plays is a #2. Unfortunately without a guy to calm him,he makes those more and more.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on Faulk.

 

[Reality Czech]

A top 4 of Parayko, Leddy, Faulk, and Krug, in a vacuum, is pretty decent. Those guys, at an average of just over 30 year old, signed for at least 4 more years with trade protection for $23.5m is indefensible. It already cost us Perron, and it's going to cost us a whole lot more before they're done.

Indefensible? That's a bit overdramatic. As much as I like Perron, we don't really need him as the team is constructed. Kyrou needed more ice time and a bigger role, and our forward depth is more than adequate.

As for the defense, what would you have done instead? I'm not a huge fan of NTCs, but it doesn't mean a guy can never be traded. Regardless, all 4 guys are doing well so I'm not even thinking about trading them. The deals will age well as the cap increases, unless someone's performance drops significantly. Maybe not the ideal situation, but it's not that bad.

 

[MissouriMook]

I was curious so I checked during commercials. Here all all the teams with an ELC in their top 4 (by ATOI)

-Montreal has half their D on ELC but they are tanking.
-Edmonton has Bouchard as 4th in ATOI, but even if they paid him an extra $4M, we'd still be paying more.
-Colorado has Byram, but they actually spend more than we do as they "waste" those saving on Erik Johnson as their #6 D
-Rangers have Miller, and their 5 and 6 on ELCs. That allows them to sneak under us by a few million. But they also have a Norris winner, which is far better than anyone we have. They are the only team that pays less that would be more if they had to negotiate their ELC Guy.
-Ottawa has Sanderson 4th, but like Edmonton, they could be paying a lot more than Leddy and still be cheaper than us.
- Detroit has Seider, but they are not a contender and could pay him an extra $12M and still be cheaper than our D.
-Anaheim has Drysdale. Give him an extra $5M and they are still cheaper than we are.
-Arizona has Moser as their #1, but like Montreal, they are tanking.
-Buffalo has Power, but they are $14M less on D than we are, so give him a raise and we are still more expensive.
-There were only a couple other team that had ELCs on their NHL D at all as #5 or 6.

I guess my point is that we spend a lot on D for a team with no true #1 (#$@% you, Faulk is not a #1). We decided to pay a premium for 4 #2-3 guys, rather than pay the premium for the top pair and fill it out with cheap talent. Make of that what you will. I think it puts us in a tough position. Others think it gives us good D depth. Time will tell.

You mentioned 9 teams in your analysis, which isn't even 1/3 of the league. Each one of those nine teams and ELC players you mentioned were from draft picks, most in the Top 5-10.

How exactly are we supposed to arrive at this type of a solution when we haven't drafted any higher than, what, #16 in the last 12 years?

 

[Brian39]

Honestly, I don't agree that most teams are getting better bang for their buck at D than the Blues are, but almost all the ones who are getting better value have done it by bridging guys and setting themselves up to either take a hit or pay the bill in a couple years. Let's look at all the playoff teams from last year plus Vegas as our sample of 'good teams trying to stay good.'

The Blues are currently spending $27.1M on the 7 D men on the roster. The top 3 combine for $19.5M and that number grows to $23.5M when you round out the top 4 to include Leddy.

The Lightning are spending $23.6M on their D this year. Next year Sergachev goes from $4.8M to $8.5M and Cernak goes from $2.95M to $5.2M. That will put them with $21.575M tied up in their top 3 guys. Unless they elevate Phillipe Meyers into the top 4 and rely purely on ELC guys for the bottom pair, their D is about to get much more expensive. They had to jettison McDonagh for basically nothing to accomplish this price point for this season.

Calgary doesn't have a single D man making over $5M right now. But Weegar was just extended for $6.25M a year and Hanifen is on the 2nd to last year of his (now) team friendly 2nd contract. Andersson is hitting the midpoint of his team friendly 2nd contract and Tanev/Zadorov both hit UFA in 2 years. Their D is either going to get way, way more expensive in 2024 or it will be blown up.

Carolina probably has the best value D in the league, but it is somewhat short-lived. $24.4M for their 7 man group. Everyone but Burns and Slavin comes off the books in the summer of 2024. Slavin and Burns come off the books in 2025 and Burns will turn 40 just before then. He probably won't age super well in the end, but they get great value for 2 years and then prioritize giving some guys raises.

Florida is only paying $11.7M for their D right now and that goes up to $18.5M when Ekblad is healthy. It's a cheap blueline, but it looks godawful without Ekblad in the lineup. Even with him in the lineup, I don't like their D all that much since they traded Weegar. It might be good enough in front of the goalies they have, but those guys certainly didn't come cheap.

Minnesota is spending $26M on their D. They currently spend $19.575M on theior top 3, but Dumba is a 28 year old UFA this summer, so that number is about to go up by several million dollars or their top 4 is about to get noticeably worse. They also have an additional $6.37M in dead cap from the Suter buyout (and that number will be $7.37 next year and the year after).

Dallas is getting good value at $22.9M for their D group, but that medium-term value will largely depend how long Suter can keep playing top 4 minutes.

Toronto is spending $23M on their 6 current D and Muzzin (who is on regular IR). Cheaper than our group, but I don't know about better.

The Kings are spending $21.1M on their D plus another $1m in dead cap from the Phaneuf buyout. Roy and Martin are both on their bridge deals and Durzi is on his ELC. Edler is on a league minimum deal and then you have Doughty's monster deal.

The Rangers got Lindgren to a nice $3Mx3 bridge deal and have Miller on the last year of his ELC. Their D is going to get noticeably more expensive over the next 2 years as those guys get their raises. They also have $3.4M in dead cap on D that they bought out in order to elevate these cheap players in the depth chart and I think that should be taken into account when you talk budget. All in all, they are currently spending $20.5M on their top 3, spending $27.5M on D when you factor in buyouts of past D men and have 2 sizeable raises due in the next couple years.

Edmonton is only spending $22.1M on their D group, but would you like to swap D groups with them? That is a hard pass for me.

Washington is spending just $18.9M on their D. However, I don't like the group at all and everyone except John Carlson is a free agent this summer. All those free agents except Fehervary are UFAs too.

The Pens are spending $24.85M on their 7 man group. They kept this number low by giving a 35 year old Letang a 6 year deal this summer to bring down that cap hit by a massive margin. They also brought in Jeff Petry who is under contract for 3 more years until well past his 38th birthday. I get it, they are all in for the last few years of Sid's contract. I'd fully mortgage the future if I were them too. But they have mortgaged a hell of a lot more than we have.

The Avs are spending significantly more than us on D. They'll get some relief this summer with EJ coming off the books, but Byram is going to get a noticeable raise even without arbitration rights. If they bridge him, they will have to deal with giving both him and Toews big, big raises in back-to-back summers and then they will wither be easily the most expensive D in the league or they will suffer 1-2 significant losses to the group.

Vegas is spending about $800k more than the Blues on their 7 D right now.

Nashville is spending more than the Blues on D. Their top 3 guys are all 32+ and signed for 4+ years. They combine to make $22.059M and that grows to $24.46M if you include their next highest paid guy (Fabbro, whi is an RFA with arb rights next year).

The Bruins will be spending noticeably more than the Blues once their actual top 4 is back in the lineup. Each member of their healthy 6 man group makes $3M+. Their top 3 make $20.1M long term and like us they spend noticeable assets to trade for a guy that they immediately gave a $6.5M AAV extension to.

I don't look at that summary and think the Blues are near the bottom in terms of contract efficiency and cap structure. We're paying more right now than a good chunk of teams, but we also have a cost-certainty over the next 3 years that most teams don't have. In year 3, we'll have two guys in their age 33 season, a guy in his age 32 season and a guy in his age 31 season. Those aren't ages of large concern to me. The contracts will absolutely start hurting beyond that point in time, but $23.5M on a pretty good top 4 for 3 years isn't terrible value. When doing this analysis, it is unfair to ding the Blues for what 2025+ will look like without also acknowledging that all these other teams are going to see their top 4 get fully blown up or get a hell of a lot more expensive than $24M at that point.

I wouldn't give Army an A for the way he's constructed the blue line since the Cup win. I fundamentally disagree with the death by a thousand cuts strategy on the back end in today's NHL and I think our lack of a true stud at the position hurts us. However, the group he has built is pretty impressive and it's not like we have any real negative value right now.

 

[Majorityof1]

You mentioned 9 teams in your analysis, which isn't even 1/3 of the league. Each one of those nine teams and ELC players you mentioned were from draft picks, most in the Top 5-10.

How exactly are we supposed to arrive at this type of a solution when we haven't drafted any higher than, what, #16 in the last 12 years?

9 teams that have D on ELC in the top 4, one of which has a pricier D than us. Our D is more expensive than 29 D, 21 of which have no ELC. So not having ELC isn't exactly the sole reason we have such expensive D.

We have more expensive D core because we pay all our top guys like high 3nd #2 D.. $6.5M puts half our D tied for 28th most expensive D in the league. The lack of ELCs and bridge deals definitely hurts but it isn't the only reason our D is one of the priciest.

I don't look at that summary and think the Blues are near the bottom in terms of contract efficiency and cap structure. We're paying more right now than a good chunk of teams, but we also have a cost-certainty over the next 3 years that most teams don't have. In year 3, we'll have two guys in their age 33 season, a guy in his age 32 season and a guy in his age 31 season. Those aren't ages of large concern to me. The contracts will absolutely start hurting beyond that point in time, but $23.5M on a pretty good top 4 for 3 years isn't terrible value. When doing this analysis, it is unfair to ding the Blues for what 2025+ will look like without also acknowledging that all these other teams are going to see their top 4 get fully blown up or get a hell of a lot more expensive than $24M at that point.

I wouldn't give Army an A for the way he's constructed the blue line since the Cup win. I fundamentally disagree with the death by a thousand cuts strategy on the back end in today's NHL and I think our lack of a true stud at the position hurts us. However, the group he has built is pretty impressive and it's not like we have any real negative value right now.

You are making a lot of assumptions on which D will get more expensive. Having expiring contracts will allow the good GMs to retool the D. Some may get more expensive, some may get worse by losing players, but some may be able to manage the cap and bring in new players who keep things relevantly equal. All that is irrelevant. Right now we do not have a defense capable of winning the cup and we are paying through the teeth for it. That is opinion, but that is my opinion. I don't care that TB had to jettison McDonogh and will get more expensive when Cernak's new contract kicks in. They still have a better D than we do for cheaper.

I was not trying to implicate Armstrong. I was only analyzing our D's cost vs utility. I think their utility is in the upper-middle of the league as a unit, but the cost is at the high-high end. That hurt us this season thinning our death by a thousand cuts offense, and may hurt more as the losses will pile up. We will almost certainly lose someone from the core next season as well (Tarasenko or RoR or both). Armstrong may have had no choice. He may have navigated everything perfectly given the situations he had to face. It doesn't change the fact that we pay too much for a D that is not good enough.

Also, the analysis ignores Scandella. That was pure luck from a cap perspective that he got hurt. Otherwise, our already expensive D would be $2.5M more.

 

[Xerloris]

Also, the analysis ignores Scandella. That was pure luck from a cap perspective that he got hurt. Otherwise, our already expensive D would be $2.5M more.

Yes thank god someone got injured so you didn't have whine and bitch about his contract. Our defense is fine and while it would be great if they were cheaper they're getting what they would get market wise anywhere else. You can claim some stupid statistics that say they should be making x% less but the fact is that if Faulk or Parayko hit UFA they would get far more than we're paying. Possibly even Krug.

 

[MissouriMook]

9 teams that have D on ELC in the top 4, one of which has a pricier D than us. Our D is more expensive than 29 D, 21 of which have no ELC. So not having ELC isn't exactly the sole reason we have such expensive D.

We have more expensive D core because we pay all our top guys like high 3nd #2 D.. $6.5M puts half our D tied for 28th most expensive D in the league. The lack of ELCs and bridge deals definitely hurts but it isn't the only reason our D is one of the priciest.

Again, teams with the luxury of legit Top 4 D on ELCs are the ones that had to be bad enough to draft really, really high. We've been too good for the last 12-15 years to be able to enjoy that luxury.

I think trading for and extending Faulk was the right move when it was clear to Armstrong that Pietrangelo was moving on or wanted too much money to stay. I think signing Krug when he was the consensus best free agent in the D class after Pietrangelo was the right move. I think extending Parayko was the right move. I was non-plussed by the Leddy trade, but he fit nicely in our group and I think re-signing him was the right move.

That's how we got here. I've read you grousing a lot about what Army did and how our defense is overpriced and underperforming, but I don't recall any alternatives that you've brought to the argument of what you would have done differently. Care to elaborate?

 

[Majorityof1]

Again, teams with the luxury of legit Top 4 D on ELCs are the ones that had to be bad enough to draft really, really high. We've been too good for the last 12-15 years to be able to enjoy that luxury.

I think trading for and extending Faulk was the right move when it was clear to Armstrong that Pietrangelo was moving on or wanted too much money to stay. I think signing Krug when he was the consensus best free agent in the D class after Pietrangelo was the right move. I think extending Parayko was the right move. I was non-plussed by the Leddy trade, but he fit nicely in our group and I think re-signing him was the right move.

That's how we got here. I've read you grousing a lot about what Army did and how our defense is overpriced and underperforming, but I don't recall any alternatives that you've brought to the argument of what you would have done differently. Care to elaborate?

Bullshit. I've given plenty of alternatives. #1 was give Pietro the contract he wanted with a NMC. Pietro and Edmundson is better and cheaper than Faulk and Krug. I don't bring it up because it creates a shitstorm every time someone mentions that name.

Other than that I have in the past listed various other free agents who I would rather have had on contracts more team friendly than ours. I am not going to bother re-listing them all. I cannot say we definitely could have signed them for what the team they play for did, but there were other better and cheaper options on the market at the time we made our moves..

I have also advocated for trading expiring assets in seasons we ended up falling short to get picks and propsects that could have helped us with affordable contracts. Again, Armstrong might not have that luxury if the front office is pushing for playoff revenue, but its what I'd prefer as a fan. In years where we are not a heavy favorite to win the cup, we need to grab some futures because we are always a 3-5ish playoff seed.

 

[Xerloris]

Bullshit. I've given plenty of alternatives. #1 was give Pietro the contract he wanted with a NMC. Pietro and Edmundson is better and cheaper than Faulk and Krug. I don't bring it up because it creates a shitstorm every time someone mentions that name.

Other than that I have in the past listed various other free agents who I would rather have had on contracts more team friendly than ours. I am not going to bother re-listing them all. I cannot say we definitely could have signed them for what the team they play for did, but there were other better and cheaper options on the market at the time we made our moves..

I have also advocated for trading expiring assets in seasons we ended up falling short to get picks and propsects that could have helped us with affordable contracts. Again, Armstrong might not have that luxury if the front office is pushing for playoff revenue, but its what I'd prefer as a fan. In years where we are not a heavy favorite to win the cup, we need to grab some futures because we are always a 3-5ish playoff seed.

Pietrangelo did not want to be here and we do not give out NMC's. So your idea of caving to the demands if a prima donna is a f***ing joke.
LOL in years we're not a heavy favorite to win the cup? When have we EVER BEEN heavy favorites? Then to top it off we won the cup when we were dead last so you would have sold off assets right? Your opinion on most things is trash but wow, you've really out done yourself now.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

thread killing post

 

[Drubilly]

thread killing post

Pew pew

 

[simon IC]

thread killing post

Mmm hmmm ... closed.