Blues Trade Proposals 2021-2022 Part 1

[jjniner]

I’m thinking Kostin may be Vladi’s replacement

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I’m thinking Kostin may be Vladi’s replacement

Until Kostin can learn how to produce offensively he's not replacing anyone. Let alone Tarasenko.

 

[MissouriMook]

IF Tarasenko still wants a trade by the off-season, how about something like Tarasenko and Kostin for a package including Braden Schneider from NYR? I am surprised that the Rangers haven't been discussed as a possible destination for Vladi. They certainly seem to have the cap space.

They don't have as much space next season as you might think with the raises kicking in to Zibanejad and Fox, but I think the Rangers fans thinking they need to reserve space for raises for Kakko and Lafreniere will be pleasantly surprised at how small their second deals will be. Both still have a lot more to prove before cashing in on big deals, and I'd be shocked if neither of them end up with a bridge deal.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

They don't have as much space next season as you might think with the raises kicking in to Zibanejad and Fox, but I think the Rangers fans thinking they need to reserve space for raises for Kakko and Lafreniere will be pleasantly surprised at how small their second deals will be. Both still have a lot more to prove before cashing in on big deals, and I'd be shocked if neither of them end up with a bridge deal.

Yes. And if we are trading for 1 of their D, I like Miller. Big, mobile, LHD who is in 2nd year this year.

 

[Renard]

Al played 200 games by the time he was 22/23. If Mikkola plays EVERY game from here on out he'll hit 200 games the season after next at 27 years old.

So we're supposed to wait until he's 27 years old for him to get comfortable? So are we just supposed to throw this and next season to wait for Mikkola to get comfortable? Or should we upgrade our biggest area of need and try to go on a run this season?

Mikkola was inserted in the line up around Thanksgiving of this year. From then to now, the Blues have been a very good team, even when we were playing a bunch of minor leagues in forward postions. We are currently in first place in our division. So how is a replacement for him our biggest area of need? How are we throwing away this season?

I don't know much about Crychrun, but I wouldn't like to see the Blues give a lot to get him.

 

[Brian39]

and the Chych narrative... WAY overrated by some folks, especially the AZ fans. to me he's a nice Dman who had ONE great season. honestly, that looks more like an outlier than a trend to me

I think this is a fairly accurate summary of his floor. What makes him so appealing to me is that this floor as a nice D man is a legit #2/3 D man in his early-mid 20s who is locked in at $4.6M through 2024/25, which is exactly the window of our current core. Even if he is the player you describe and has no room for further development, his contract is excellent. It is hard to find legit top 4 D men who are cost controlled through a Cup window. Even if his ability is way overhyped, he fits our needs well and could be flipped for good value in a year if he becomes expendable or we hit a cap crunch. The value of going after him is that he is a 3.5 year solution or a short-term solution that can be flipped to recover the majority of the acquisition cost. And that comes with the upside that last season may not have been an outlier and he could quickly become the biggest bargain contract in the NHL.

We've talked a ton on this forum about how Krug's ideal usage is as a sheltered 3rd pairing guy with heavy PP time and offensive deployment. The roadblock to that is that you need a couple good LHD ahead of him without breaking the bank financially. Chychrun checks both of those boxes. And if Mikkola hits, they don't make each other redundant. You bridge Mikkola for a low AAV over 2 years and suddenly you can run a D group of

Chychrun/Mikkola-Parayko
Mikkola/Chychrun-Faulk
Krug-X

at a cap number that you can manage. When Mikkola becomes a UFA, Chychrun will have 1 more year left before UFA and you make a decision. Trade Chychrun to re-sign Mikkola or let Mikkola go. Either way you get this year and 2 more years of a damn good top 4 and the league's best offensive 3rd pairing D man. If Mikkola turns out to just be another guy, then you've still got a top 4 LHD in Chychrun.

There is a strong case to be made that the majority of the acquisition cost for Chychrun is about buying that contract and not the raw talent of the player. Chychrun at $4.6M is the exact fit for Army's death by a thousand cuts vision.

Even if last year was a massive outlier for Chychrun, I think getting 3.5 years of him at his cap number would provide more value to the organization during the current Cup window than the combination of any two futures assets currently held by the organization. Given the contracts on the books, my #1 priority is winning another Cup between now and 2025. I don't care if the futures assets explode and become great players in 2025 and beyond. Getting a cheap #2/3 D man in a Cup window would be worth it.

Edit: I want to be crystal clear about my view of the organization because it impacts how I value our futures assets. Thomas and Kyrou appear to have broken out and are on discount deals for this year and next. ROR is a UFA after next year. Barby and Sunny will be due raises in 2 years. Now is the time. This year and next year are the only two years where we will have all of ROR, Thomas, Kyrou, Barby, and Sunny. It is more likely than not that at least 2 of them are gone after 2022/23. Possibly 3 of them. Tarasenko is almost certainly not here beyond 2023 (and likely beyond this season). We have built an incredible offense that has an expiration date. It will remain good after that expiration date, but I'd rather go for it right now than hold on to futures assets in the hopes that they fill holes in the offense down the line. I want another Cup and the next 2 years are the best opportunity. We have hard decisions after that. Chychrun (even if he is just a #3 D man) plugs our most glaring hole today, next year and allows us great flexibility when the hard decisions have to be made.

 

[PocketNines]

Chychrun would look incredible in a Blue Note. He would be a MASSIVE upgrade on Scandella. I remember coveting him when I was watching Dunn play in the OHL in his draft+1 year. He is right there with Sergachev and McAvoy his fellow top of the 2016ers and for a time looked to be drafted as the first defenseman that year. Chychrun was ranked #2 overall a few months before that draft. Somehow people talked themselves into Juolevi and Jake Bean being better, which they never were. Last year was absolutely what was expected of this elite prospect. When I saw him last year I felt glad he was on Arizona and not Colorado. It's this year that's the outlier, and holding him accountable for being on a team that isn't trying to be competitive is deeply unfair. I think he would be in relatively short order the best defenseman on the Blues, better than Parayko. This is a top pairing young cornerstone player *who is in perfect timing for the Blues core.* Maybe not HoF cornerstone, but top pairing cornerstone. That is why you are seeing reports of a huge ask and GMs remaining interested.

Am I excited that Mikkola's career games 38-53 have gone very well? Yes! Let's keep him! But crossing our fingers that because it's going well against regular season teams for a 16-game stretch, Mikkola is ready to shut down top lines in the playoffs for two straight months seems like a very poorly thought out plan. This is an exceptional opportunity. The Blues have a unique assemblage of forwards with Barbashev @ 2.25, Kyrou @ 2.8 and Thomas @ 2.8 for the next two seasons and we're going to run out this D that isn't as good as other top contender Ds. Would it hurt to pay Neighbors, Kostin, a 1st and another prospect/pick? Yes, but the trade off is both very well timed and worth it and before you know it there would be other prospects. In fact if Tarasenko is traded after the season but before the draft it would probably be for futures so some of that value would come back.

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

I think this is a fairly accurate summary of his floor. What makes him so appealing to me is that this floor as a nice D man is a legit #2/3 D man in his early-mid 20s who is locked in at $4.6M through 2024/25, which is exactly the window of our current core. Even if he is the player you describe and has no room for further development, his contract is excellent. It is hard to find legit top 4 D men who are cost controlled through a Cup window. Even if his ability is way overhyped, he fits our needs well and could be flipped for good value in a year if he becomes expendable or we hit a cap crunch. The value of going after him is that he is a 3.5 year solution or a short-term solution that can be flipped to recover the majority of the acquisition cost. And that comes with the upside that last season may not have been an outlier and he could quickly become the biggest bargain contract in the NHL.

agree with all this, but like I said, the 'ask' appears to be that he's 'elite' (AZ fans say this over and over) and to me, he's not, and he's not worth that type of cost
would I like him here? of course..who wouldn't? but not at what they're asking..ie.. the equivalent of 4 1st's/prospects

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think this is a fairly accurate summary of his floor. What makes him so appealing to me is that this floor as a nice D man is a legit #2/3 D man in his early-mid 20s who is locked in at $4.6M through 2024/25, which is exactly the window of our current core. Even if he is the player you describe and has no room for further development, his contract is excellent. It is hard to find legit top 4 D men who are cost controlled through a Cup window. Even if his ability is way overhyped, he fits our needs well and could be flipped for good value in a year if he becomes expendable or we hit a cap crunch. The value of going after him is that he is a 3.5 year solution or a short-term solution that can be flipped to recover the majority of the acquisition cost. And that comes with the upside that last season may not have been an outlier and he could quickly become the biggest bargain contract in the NHL.

The problem is because of the value of his contract, the ask is darn near Eichel level of 4 1sts. If Chychrun settles in around his 18/19, 19/20, and this season, then you are paying a massive premium on a player that might be at just a ~$1-2M discount based on his on-ice performance.

From a pure player fit perspective, Chychrun would be perfect because we don't need him to be the Norris caliber type guy that he was last season when he feasted on games against terrible teams. He seems to be a guy that could work well with both Faulk or Parayko. I'm still unsure on what type of defenseman he is in a typical 82 game schedule playing every team as opposed to the schedule of last season though. Player wise and cap wise, he's a great fit, but asset cost wise I would very much not be a fan of unless Army gets him at a price that works.

 

[Brian39]

agree with all this, but like I said, the 'ask' appears to be that he's 'elite' (AZ fans say this over and over) and to me, he's not, and he's not worth that type of cost
would I like him here? of course..who wouldn't? but not at what they're asking..ie.. the equivalent of 4 1st's/prospects

The problem is because of the value of his contract, the ask is darn near Eichel level of 4 1sts. If Chychrun settles in around his 18/19, 19/20, and this season, then you are paying a massive premium on a player that might be at just a ~$1-2M discount based on his on-ice performance.

From a pure player fit perspective, Chychrun would be perfect because we don't need him to be the Norris caliber type guy that he was last season when he feasted on games against terrible teams. He seems to be a guy that could work well with both Faulk or Parayko. I'm still unsure on what type of defenseman he is in a typical 82 game schedule playing every team as opposed to the schedule of last season though. Player wise and cap wise, he's a great fit, but asset cost wise I would very much not be a fan of unless Army gets him at a price that works.

And like Eichel, no one is going to pay the asking price. Eichel (and a future 3rd) returned Alex Tuch (former 1st but now a $5M middle 6 forward), Peyton Krebs (top-end prospect), a 1st (lottery protected) and a 2nd from a team who everyone believes will be picking in the last third of the draft. At the absolute most generous interpretation of that return, they didn't get the four 1sts (or equivalent value) that they were hoping for. They got two 1sts in futures assets (one high value and one low value as "1sts" go), a quality roster player who was once a 1st and then they swapped an expected early 3rd for an expected late 2nd.

There are a lot of packages we can put together that start to approach the value of that package. I don't think anyone believes that Chychrun is more valuable than a (medically risky) Eichel, so I don't think you need to fully match that offer. And since Arizona has huge location uncertainty and isn't nearly as focused on selling tickets as Buffalo currently is, I think the package can skew more towards futures. They very obviously don't care about the on-ice product and I don't see that changing next year.

Perunovich, one of Neighbours/Bolduc, and a 1st (lottery protected) nets them two 1st round value assets as well as a young D man who is a former 2nd but has seen his value climb since being drafted. Scandella (or a forward) would have to go somewhere in order to make the cap work. Scandella has a 7 team no trade list and you have to imagine Arizona is on there. Assuming that's the case, you get a verbal deal done with Arizona and then find a way to shed Scandella before pulling the trigger. Doug and Bill presumably have a good relationship and there shouldn't be any concern of getting ambushed after moving out Scandella. If that's a concern, you structure it as a 3 way trade. I don't view that trade as gutting our franchise. It's a high cost, but Perunovich is an expendable asset without a future in St. Louis and I expect the 1st to be a later pick that wouldn't help us at all for 2-3 years. I'd certainly be trying hard to get Chychrun for less (or for this package to be conditioned on Arizona retaining $1M or so to further bring down the cap number). But as the deadline nears and it becomes clear that they aren't getting/beating the Eichel package I'd probably go that high.

I think 3.5 years of a $1-$2M discount for a legit #2/3 D man is incredibly valuable in a stagnant cap world. Especially when that AAV discount is combined with not having to buy post-prime years or offer robust trade protection the way you have to in the UFA market.

 

[bleedblue1223]

And like Eichel, no one is going to pay the asking price. Eichel (and a future 3rd) returned Alex Tuch (former 1st but now a middle 6 forward), Peyton Krebs (top-end prospect), a 1st (lottery protected) and a 2nd from a team who everyone believes will be picking in the last third of the draft. At the absolute most generous interpretation of that return, they didn't get the four 1sts (or equivalent value) that they were hoping for. They got two 1sts in futures assets (one high value and one low value as "1sts" go), a quality roster player who was once a 1st and then they swapped an expected early 3rd for an expected late 2nd.

There are a lot of packages we can put together that start to approach the value of that package. I don't think anyone believes that Chychrun is more valuable than a (medically risky) Eichel, so I don't think you need to fully match that offer. And since Arizona has huge location uncertainty and isn't nearly as focused on selling tickets as Buffalo currently is, I think the package can skew more towards futures.

Perunovich, one of Neighbours/Bolduc, and a 1st (lottery protected) nets them two 1st round value assets as well as a young D man who is a former 2nd but has seen his value climb since being drafted. Scandella (or a forward) would have to go somewhere in order to make the cap work. Scandella has a 7 team no trade list and you have to imagine Arizona is on there. Assuming that's the case, you get a verbal deal done with Arizona and then find a way to shed Scandella before pulling the trigger. Doug and Bill presumably have a good relationship and there shouldn't be any concern of getting ambushed after moving out Scandella. If that's a concern, you structure it as a 3 way trade. I don't view that trade as gutting our franchise. It's a high cost, but Perunovich is an expendable asset without a future in St. Louis and I expect the 1st to be a later pick that wouldn't help us at all for 2-3 years. I'd certainly be trying hard to get Chychrun for less (or for this package to be conditioned on Arizona retaining another $1M or so to further bring down the cap number). But as the deadline nears and it becomes clear that they aren't getting/beating the Eichel package I'd probably go that high.

I think 3.5 years of a $1-$2M discount for a legit top 4 D man is incredibly valuable in a stagnant cap world. Especially when that AAV discount is combined with not having to buy post-prime years or offer robust trade protection the way you have to in the UFA market.

Sure, the point is though, if we pay the asset cost of an equivalent #1 dman which Chychrun is being valued at, and he only turns out to be a #2 or #3, we'd agree that would be a bad use of assets, right? This is an issue I have with valuing cap as highly as some on HF do.

I suppose the upside with Chychrun is we'd have the time for him to prove what he is before his extension, so he can't just live off of last season and get an $8.5+M extension. His stats last season seem heavily influenced by Ducks/Kings/Sharks, and even we kind of sucked in our weird series with them. It would be unfair to completely write that season off, but it should have an asterisk. If he turns out to be more of a Noah Hanifin and we pay a significant price of a #1 dman, then we made a horrible decision.

 

[Frenzy31]

And like Eichel, no one is going to pay the asking price. Eichel (and a future 3rd) returned Alex Tuch (former 1st but now a middle 6 forward), Peyton Krebs (top-end prospect), a 1st (lottery protected) and a 2nd from a team who everyone believes will be picking in the last third of the draft. At the absolute most generous interpretation of that return, they didn't get the four 1sts (or equivalent value) that they were hoping for. They got two 1sts in futures assets (one high value and one low value as "1sts" go), a quality roster player who was once a 1st and then they swapped an expected early 3rd for an expected late 2nd.
.

Eichel will be coming off a neck surgery and will not have been on the ice in nearly 1.5 years. Plus a fairly large cap hit. I think Chychrun will get similar return for Eichel as he was considered damaged goods at the time. (I don't think the two players, when healthy have similar value - Eichel had a lot more prior to his injury.

 

[PocketNines]

In all cases (including the floor where he's as good as Hanifin), Jakob Chychrun is an on-ice upgrade on Marco Scandella for the 2.5 seasons remaining on Scandella's contract. Undebatably. So the team would be better on the ice for three years. That already is not horrible.

Additionally, everyone agrees the price we'd be paying is a futures package to make that upgrade from Scandella. The question is to its size.

Zero of the assets we'd be sending are of the caliber Thomas and Kyrou recently were. Kostin isn't, Neighbors isn't, Perunovich isn't, but we do know Bill Armstrong likes them. There isn't one untouchable piece of the futures package, big or small, currently being debated.

An absolute on-ice upgrade for three seasons is hard to describe as a horrible decision in a vacuum, but in the specific case where the forwards are right now loaded for a major two year window, it's even more difficult to describe that way. The consequences of giving up those futures would have to be pretty severe to make improving the defense at a moment when the forwards are specifically loaded for bear a horrible decision.

This is the opposite of a situation where, for example, a massive amount of data shows how poor a save percentage a particular goalie will have when shots are low, then selling the farm to bring that player from the highest shot allowing team to the fewest shot allowing team and immediately getting the exact result the data said would happen. Now that was a horrible decision.

 

[Brian39]

Sure, the point is though, if we pay the asset cost of an equivalent #1 dman which Chychrun is being valued at, and he only turns out to be a #2 or #3, we'd agree that would be a bad use of assets, right? This is an issue I have with valuing cap as highly as some on HF do.

I suppose the upside with Chychrun is we'd have the time for him to prove what he is before his extension, so he can't just live off of last season and get an $8.5+M extension. His stats last season seem heavily influenced by Ducks/Kings/Sharks, and even we kind of sucked in our weird series with them. It would be unfair to completely write that season off, but it should have an asterisk. If he turns out to be more of a Noah Hanifin and we pay a significant price of a #1 dman, then we made a horrible decision.

I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree. The value of every player in this league outside a handful of superstar guys is directly intertwined with his contract. Erik Karlsson is still a really good player. Erasing contracts and cap restraints, he would easily return a haul of assets from a contender if he were on the market. Ignoring contracts and the cap, he immediately makes any contender much better. But once you factor in contracts, he is unmovable (even if he waived his trade protection). Today, San Jose would have to pay a team to take on that contract, even though he is on pace for 67 points and would objectively make any team better. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that you can divorce a player from the contract when judging value.

Karlsson is a #1 D right now. Let's say the asset cost of acquiring both are identical. Would you rather have Karlsson or Chychrun (who is guaranteed to be a #2/3 tweener) when you factor in contracts? I'll take the bargain #2/3 in his prime than the overpaid #1 on the downswing every single time. Because you can't just divorce age and cap hit from the equation when you determine what a appropriate cost is. There is not such thing as the asset cost to acquire a 1D or the asset cost to acquire a #2/3D that doesn't take these factors into consideration.

Seth Jones is a #1D and he returned a similar package to what we're talking about for Chychrun. To get Jones the Hawks gave up a top end D prospect (former 8th overall), a 1st, a 2nd, and they swapped their #12 with the #32 pick the Blue Jackets had. That's a noticeably better package than the one we are talking about and the payoff to that was that they had to give Jones a contract worth $9.5M a year. I'll take Chycrhun at $4.6M for 3.5 years over Jones at $9.5M 100% of the time.

Locked in #1D without major contractual risk don't become available to obtain for any amount of meaningful term. Full stop. You either take a risk on a big dollar max-term deal before they lock in as a #1D or you give them a huge-dollar max term deal that buys a lot of years where they will likely decline. Paying assets to acquire a no-doubt #1D with term on a manageable AAV isn't something that you can do in the NHL. They don't become available. There is no cap-ignoring "asset cost equivalent to a #1D" that you can compare to because the only ones that come available are made available specifically because their contracts destroy a team's cap structure.

Given the choice between spending assets on a #1D paid $9M+ with robust trade protection and/or term into their mid-30s or a #2/3D in his mid 20s for $4.6M, I acquire the #2/3D with zero hesitation.

As for the Hanifin comparison, that contract was given before Hanifin ever averaged 19 minutes a night. Chychrun has been playing 20+ minutes a night since his sophomore season. This is Chychrun's 3rd season playing 22+ minutes a night, which is something that Hanifin has never done. In 2019/20 (the year before Chychrun's massive year), he played at a 34 point pace and had good possession numbers on a bad team while playing 22:26 a night with a 50/50 zone start split. Hanifin has never had a season even close to that impressive. Even if you fully ignore last season, Chychrun already demonstrated that he is noticeably better than Hanifin. He's been (at worst) a #2 D man since 2019 and has been a #1 for the majority of that time. When I say #2/3 D man, I'm talking about a legit, no doubt #2/3 for a Cup contender caliber D man. I use that term to describe guys like Faulk, Parayko, and McDonagh. They either drive roughly 50% of the success of an average or better top pair (without the capability to successfully prop up a #4 D man as their partner) or they are the main driver of a good 2nd pair. This is the first year Hanifin has ever done that and I would not have described any of his past performance as being a #2/3 D man.

I view Chychrun's floor (and current ability) as better than anything Hanifin has done in his career prior to this season under Sutter.

 

[bleedblue1223]

And with Kyrou/Thomas breaking out big this season, it probably puts us in a spot where we have a really good 3-4 year window where we are legitimate contenders, and at the end of that, we re-evaluate again. So, I see the argument of it doesn't matter if we overpay in terms of assets because the entire point is to maximize our ability to win a Cup while some of our older players are still top contributors.

To take a plausible option as a comparison. We could probably get Sanheim at a much cheaper cost and a reasonable extension and that would represent Chychrun's floor or we could pay a significant cost for Chychrun and run that risk of Chychrun being a #1 type on the left or just being another high quality piece to go along with a solid top 4 of Parayko/Faulk/Krug. Maybe the right decision to take just swing for the fences because the upside is worth it, even if we lose a top prospect or 2 and a 1st.

And my other thought is, Army tends to be pretty good on the prospects he trades away. He hasn't really traded someone away that has developed into something that we regret trading away. So, if he gave up a sizable package I'd trust his decision making on deciding which prospects were the best to keep or trade away.

 

[Brian39]

Eichel will be coming off a neck surgery and will not have been on the ice in nearly 1.5 years. Plus a fairly large cap hit. I think Chychrun will get similar return for Eichel as he was considered damaged goods at the time. (I don't think the two players, when healthy have similar value - Eichel had a lot more prior to his injury.

I agree that they will be similar, which is why my proposal has a number of valuable assets that mirror the Eichel deal. But I don't think that Chychrun will command quite as much as what Eichel did. At the end of the day, Chychrun has never been as hyped as Eichel was and his on ice performance has never been as good as Eichel's. Because of the higher upside of acquiring a legitimate Hart trophy candidate, I think that Chychrun will be obtainable for a similar package in terms of asset quantity but with one or two of those assets being lesser quality. I think it is entirely likely that they get 3 assets roughly on par with "1st round value" but that none of them will be as valuable as Krebs.

Perunovich, Neighbours/Bolduc, and a 1st is similarly structured to Tuch, Krebs and a 1st but isn't as high of value. Krebs is a more highly touted prospect than the prospect we'd be giving up and thus more valuable. Tuch and Perunovich are polar opposite style assets, but I'm not sure which would be described as more valuable to a team like Arizona. Tuch obviously is a known quantity, but Perunovich has a higher ceiling. Arizona at this point in their franchise development has much more need for a raw, high upside young player than a $5M middle 6 winger with 5 years of term, so while Perunovich is less valuable in a vacuum, he's a better fit for Arizona than Tuch was for Buffalo (who have been open that their main interest in Tuch is that he's from the area and they hope he will drive locker rook culture).

I think that the Eichel return is Arizona's guide for moving Chychrun, I just don't see them getting a prospect like Krebs if they also require 2 more valuable assets. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is largely irrelevant for us. We don't have a prospect like Krebs, so it isn't like we could amend our offer. But we can make an offer that starts to look a lot like an Eichel-return-lite without destroying our future.

Not for nothing, but Eichel's last NHL game was 11 months ago and he was skating over the summer. He also began skating again about a month after surgery. I'm not downplaying the surgery because neck and spinal stuff is serious. But he's targeting a return in February and less optimistic timetables put him back in March. He's going to go 11-12 months between NHL games and was less limited in training than the vast majority of year long injuries. It's not at all true that he will go a year and a half off the ice.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree. The value of every player in this league outside a handful of superstar guys is directly intertwined with his contract. Erik Karlsson is still a really good player. Erasing contracts and cap restraints, he would easily return a haul of assets from a contender if he were on the market. Ignoring contracts and the cap, he immediately makes any contender much better. But once you factor in contracts, he is unmovable (even if he waived his trade protection). Today, San Jose would have to pay a team to take on that contract, even though he is on pace for 67 points and would objectively make any team better. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that you can divorce a player from the contract when judging value.

Karlsson is a #1 D right now. Let's say the asset cost of acquiring both are identical. Would you rather have Karlsson or Chychrun (who is guaranteed to be a #2/3 tweener) when you factor in contracts? I'll take the bargain #2/3 in his prime than the overpaid #1 on the downswing every single time. Because you can't just divorce age and cap hit from the equation when you determine what a appropriate cost is. There is not such thing as the asset cost to acquire a 1D or the asset cost to acquire a #2/3D that doesn't take these factors into consideration.

Seth Jones is a #1D and he returned a similar package to what we're talking about for Chychrun. To get Jones the Hawks gave up a top end D prospect (former 8th overall), a 1st, a 2nd, and they swapped their #12 with the #32 pick the Blue Jackets had. That's a noticeably better package than the one we are talking about and the payoff to that was that they had to give Jones a contract worth $9.5M a year. I'll take Chycrhun at $4.6M for 3.5 years over Jones at $9.5M 100% of the time.

Locked in #1D without major contractual risk don't become available to obtain for any amount of meaningful term. Full stop. You either take a risk on a big dollar max-term deal before they lock in as a #1D or you give them a huge-dollar max term deal that buys a lot of years where they will likely decline. Paying assets to acquire a no-doubt #1D with term on a manageable AAV isn't something that you can do in the NHL. They don't become available. There is no cap-ignoring "asset cost equivalent to a #1D" that you can compare to because the only ones that come available are made available specifically because their contracts destroy a team's cap structure.

Given the choice between spending assets on a #1D paid $9M+ with robust trade protection and/or term into their mid-30s or a #2/3D in his mid 20s for $4.6M, I acquire the #2/3D with zero hesitation.

As for the Hanifin comparison, that contract was given before Hanifin ever averaged 19 minutes a night. Chychrun has been playing 20+ minutes a night since his sophomore season. This is Chychrun's 3rd season playing 22+ minutes a night, which is something that Hanifin has never done. In 2019/20 (the year before Chychrun's massive year), he played at a 34 point pace and had good possession numbers on a bad team while playing 22:26 a night with a 50/50 zone start split. Hanifin has never had a season even close to that impressive. Even if you fully ignore last season, Chychrun already demonstrated that he is noticeably better than Hanifin. He's been (at worst) a #2 D man since 2019 and has been a #1 for the majority of that time. When I say #2/3 D man, I'm talking about a legit, no doubt #2/3 for a Cup contender caliber D man. I use that term to describe guys like Faulk, Parayko, and McDonagh. They either drive roughly 50% of the success of an average or better top pair (without the capability to successfully prop up a #4 D man as their partner) or they are the main driver of a good 2nd pair. This is the first year Hanifin has ever done that and I would not have described any of his past performance as being a #2/3 D man.

I view Chychrun's floor (and current ability) as better than anything Hanifin has done in his career prior to this season under Sutter.

Sure, the contract is intertwined with their value, I'm not saying it's not. The problem with Chychrun is that people seem to value him on the idea of just last season. If he was someone that I could look at with confidence of being a top 15 Norris vote getter year in and year out, and he has the contract that he has, I'd back the truck up for him. The problem is there is a massive difference between last season and what he has done in other seasons, including this one. I'm also willing to say this season is an outlier in the other direction. We really don't know what type of defensemen he's going to end up developing into, and giving significant assets up for him is a risk.

#1 D can be had in trades, it's just rarer. Hamilton from Calgary to Carolina is a pretty good comp player wise in this situation, but he also was proven over multiple season with what he was. That trade was also way more complex to determine what his actual value in the trade was. You had a top prospect with signing issues, a solid role player, and a couple other young solid players with upside.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's also interesting to look back and compare this moment to when we discussed getting a top LHD when we traded for Bouwmeester, at least for the posters involved back then. On some level the situations are similar, and in other ways they are completely different. This time, we have a goalie that we know can win a Cup. This time we know we have the high-end centers and depth to win a Cup. And this time, we know we have the high-end scorers and quality depth to win a Cup. Back then, we didn't have a goalie, even if we thought the tandem was good enough. Back then, we thought the depth was good enough, but now we see what quality depth actually looks like.

Maybe those differences are why I should go against my gut and say we should go all-in, but I just balk at the idea to give up value that treats Chychrun like he's already a Norris type defenseman. I definitely see the reasoning and the more I think on it, the more open I am to it. Maybe I'm just hoping for a LHD equivalent to the Buchnevich trade lol.

 

[Brian39]

Sure, the contract is intertwined with their value, I'm not saying it's not. The problem with Chychrun is that people seem to value him on the idea of just last season. If he was someone that I could look at with confidence of being a top 15 Norris vote getter year in and year out, and he has the contract that he has, I'd back the truck up for him. The problem is there is a massive difference between last season and what he has done in other seasons, including this one. I'm also willing to say this season is an outlier in the other direction. We really don't know what type of defensemen he's going to end up developing into, and giving significant assets up for him is a risk.

#1 D can be had in trades, it's just rarer. Hamilton from Calgary to Carolina is a pretty good comp player wise in this situation, but he also was proven over multiple season with what he was. That trade was also way more complex to determine what his actual value in the trade was. You had a top prospect with signing issues, a solid role player, and a couple other young solid players with upside.

Dougie Hamilton was the #3 D man on Calgary the season before the trade behind Gio and Brodie. He played under 20 minutes a night in each of the two seasons before that. He was absolutely not a #1D at the time he was traded from CGY to CAR and Carolina didn't use him as a #1 D the first year he was there either. It wasn't until following season that he started getting top pair minutes. At the time of that trade, Hamilton was a guy whose floor was a #2/3 with the potential to be a #1D.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Dougie Hamilton was the #3 D man on Calgary the season before the trade behind Gio and Brodie. He played under 20 minutes a night in each of the two seasons before that. He was absolutely not a #1D at the time he was traded from CGY to CAR and Carolina didn't use him as a #1 D the first year he was there either. It wasn't until following season that he started getting top pair minutes. At the time of that trade, Hamilton was a guy whose floor was a #2/3 with the potential to be a #1D.

Scoring 40+ points, with a 50 point season, a 9th and 14th Norris finish. He absolutely was someone you could acquire with confidence of being a #1 dman, doesn't matter to me if the team you played on happened to have other defensemen that are just as good or better. I will admit that he had some perceived personality quirks that negatively impacted his value.

 

[PocketNines]

FWIW according to the main Chychrun trade thread there's a Kypreos report that the main focus from the Arizona side is getting a blue chip prospect back + 1st + 2d + good prospect. Blues will be less able to conform an offer like that. But mayyyybe ... maybe Bill Armstrong likes enough of the Blues' recent draftees he selected to make a grouping from them work. If people are valuing him based on last year it's because last year was always what this player was expected to be. He had been building to it. If he stays healthy Chychrun is a 1,000+ game defenseman. Kyrou was his teammate in junior, I am sure the Blues are very aware of Chychrun's abilities.

 

[Brian39]

Maybe those differences are why I should go against my gut and say we should go all-in, but I just balk at the idea to give up value that treats Chychrun like he's already a Norris type defenseman. I definitely see the reasoning and the more I think on it, the more open I am to it. Maybe I'm just hoping for a LHD equivalent to the Buchnevich trade lol.

That just isn't what is being presented though. A Norris type D man with term would cost substantially more than what is being discussed. Players with term cost more than pure rentals and it isn't fair to compare the cost for 3+ years of term to guys with a few months left on their deal. The last trade involving already-Norris caliber D men that I can think of was Subban for Weber. A futures package for a non-rental Norris caliber guy would involve a major asset off the current roster or a futures package that involves a recent top 5 draft pick and multiple other top-end futures assets.

I get your hesitation to mortgage the future, but the type of future mortgaging we're talking about isn't a package on par with the package for a no-risk top 20 NHL D man.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That just isn't what is being presented though. A Norris type D man with term would cost substantially more than what is being discussed. Players with term cost more than pure rentals and it isn't fair to compare the cost for 3+ years of term to guys with a few months left on their deal. The last trade involving already-Norris caliber D men that I can think of was Subban for Weber. A futures package for a non-rental Norris caliber guy would involve a major asset off the current roster or a futures package that involves a recent top 5 draft pick and multiple other top-end futures assets.

I get your hesitation to mortgage the future, but the type of future mortgaging we're talking about isn't a package on par with the package for a no-risk top 20 NHL D man.

Is Chychrun not being valued based on last season of him finishing 10th for the Norris? I think if someone finishes in the top 10/15, they are Norris caliber. They display the ability in any given year to contend for the Norris. I consider Hamilton at the time of his trade to Carolina to be Norris caliber. We might just have different definitions there, my bad for being vague.

What would you be willing to give for Chychrun and what would make you pass on him? And for the package you'd be willing to give, what would the equivalent player be that offers no cap value surplus? Curious where you are at in terms of specific value.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Perunovich, one of Neighbours/Bolduc, and a 1st (lottery protected) nets them two 1st round value assets as well as a young D man who is a former 2nd but has seen his value climb since being drafted. Scandella (or a forward) would have to go somewhere in order to make the cap work. Scandella has a 7 team no trade list and you have to imagine Arizona is on there. Assuming that's the case, you get a verbal deal done with Arizona and then find a way to shed Scandella before pulling the trigger. Doug and Bill presumably have a good relationship and there shouldn't be any concern of getting ambushed after moving out Scandella. If that's a concern, you structure it as a 3 way trade. I don't view that trade as gutting our franchise. It's a high cost, but Perunovich is an expendable asset without a future in St. Louis and I expect the 1st to be a later pick that wouldn't help us at all for 2-3 years. I'd certainly be trying hard to get Chychrun for less (or for this package to be conditioned on Arizona retaining $1M or so to further bring down the cap number). But as the deadline nears and it becomes clear that they aren't getting/beating the Eichel package I'd probably go that high.

@bleedblue1223

This looks like what he would offer, I think.

 

[Brian39]

Scoring 40+ points, with a 50 point season, a 9th and 14th Norris finish. He absolutely was someone you could acquire with confidence of being a #1 dman, doesn't matter to me if the team you played on happened to have other defensemen that are just as good or better. I will admit that he had some perceived personality quirks that negatively impacted his value.

Do you view Torey Krug as a #1 D man? 3 straight 50+ point seasons, 5 straight 40+ point seasons, 6 total 40+ point seasons, a 15th and 19th Norris finish. Krug scored at a slightly higher clip than Hamilton at comparable ages, played more minutes on better teams, and had better possession metrics. He's not a #1D and I don't know who viewed him as a lock to be so.

It isn't about playing on a team that happens to have studs. It is about minutes and deployment. Hamilton wasn't the #3 or 4 guy playing 23 minutes a night behind studs who played 24 minutes. He was playing 19 and 20 minutes a night with sheltered usage. In his 3 years with Calgary he averaged 20:20 a night. He was below 20 minutes in 2 of those 3 years. In his first 6 years in the league he averaged exactly 20 minutes a night. Compare that to our own Parayko who was stuck behind Petro and Bouw. By 24 (Hamilton's age in his final season in Calgary), Parayko was logging 22:37 a night in the regular season and then played 25 minutes a night in the playoffs. 20-21 minutes a night is sheltered deployment and not the usage of a #1D.

Hamilton showed #1D upside, but he was absolutely not comfortably a #1 D. He hadn't demonstrated an ability to handle that role, Caroline didn't put him in that role the following season and the knock on him was that he could pile up offense but needed sheltered usage to do so. If he is absolutely someone you could acquire with confidence of being a #1 D man then so is Chychrun.