Blues Trade Proposals 2023-2024

[Stealth JD]

Klim Kostin? Keegan Kolesar? Kirill Kaprizov? Kaapo Kakko?

I really, really hope you’re not referring to Kasperi Kapanen…

Any chance to get KK on the cheap as a 4th liner?

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Isn't this the trade thread?

You can't fight in here! Its the War Room!!

Stephenson is an intriguing UFA option, but I think I might be more interested in kicking the tires about a trade for William Karlsson.

Eichel and Hertl are the 1-2 center punch in Vegas next season and Karlsson makes $5.9M for another 3 seasons. That's not crazy 3C money, but it is definitely luxury 3C money. They have clearly decided they like Stephenson more than him, so if they are willing to pay $5.9M for a 3C then I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to ship out Karlsson and offer a nice AAV to Stephenson as a luxury 3C. Or maybe they would be content letting Nicolas Roy play the 3C role at $3M AAV in order to make a bigger push to extend Hanifin and/or Marchessault.

I could very much see Karlsson being dealt for pennies on the dollar as a cap casualty this summer.

I think we have a pretty good chance of not being on his 10 team no-trade list. You have to assume that Arizona and Columbus are on his list as well as most (or all) of Canada. That only leaves him with a couple more slots for us, Buffalo, San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Washington, and any other market he might not want to go to. Who knows his preferences, but I think we have a pretty good chance of landing on the right side of that cutoff line.

Stapehnson is only signing here as a UFA if we offer him more total dollars than anyone else. I think I'd prefer Karlsson at $5.9M x 3 years than Stephenson at $5M+ x 4+ years. The 3 year term on his deal is a nice duration as a stopgap until prospects are ready. He's good at the dot, he's good defensively, and he can score at even strength. He checks a lot of boxes for what this team needs in the middle 6 while making enough that the acquisition cost might be very low. He's still a good player, but the age likely scares teams (rightfully so as he just turned 31) and I could see Vegas being willing to basically give him away to clear cap space as they have done before.

You make it sound like it would matter if St Louis is on his No Trade List from Vegas.

 

[Brockon]

Isn't this the trade thread?

I mean we're talking about trading Army for a potential new GM via firing or promotion - vetting potential acquisitions... That's not particularly off topic in the context of this thread is it?

 

[Brockon]

Stephenson is an intriguing UFA option, but I think I might be more interested in kicking the tires about a trade for William Karlsson.

Eichel and Hertl are the 1-2 center punch in Vegas next season and Karlsson makes $5.9M for another 3 seasons. That's not crazy 3C money, but it is definitely luxury 3C money. They have clearly decided they like Stephenson more than him, so if they are willing to pay $5.9M for a 3C then I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to ship out Karlsson and offer a nice AAV to Stephenson as a luxury 3C. Or maybe they would be content letting Nicolas Roy play the 3C role at $3M AAV in order to make a bigger push to extend Hanifin and/or Marchessault.

I could very much see Karlsson being dealt for pennies on the dollar as a cap casualty this summer.

I think we have a pretty good chance of not being on his 10 team no-trade list. You have to assume that Arizona and Columbus are on his list as well as most (or all) of Canada. That only leaves him with a couple more slots for us, Buffalo, San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Washington, and any other market he might not want to go to. Who knows his preferences, but I think we have a pretty good chance of landing on the right side of that cutoff line.

Stapehnson is only signing here as a UFA if we offer him more total dollars than anyone else. I think I'd prefer Karlsson at $5.9M x 3 years than Stephenson at $5M+ x 4+ years. The 3 year term on his deal is a nice duration as a stopgap until prospects are ready. He's good at the dot, he's good defensively, and he can score at even strength. He checks a lot of boxes for what this team needs in the middle 6 while making enough that the acquisition cost might be very low. He's still a good player, but the age likely scares teams (rightfully so as he just turned 31) and I could see Vegas being willing to basically give him away to clear cap space as they have done before.

I wouldn't mind picking up Wild Bill for a pair of mid round picks or a 3rd + C tier prospect - but I don't expect that gets it done. And I don't believe we should be spending any assets more valuable than a 3rd to bring in another insulating vet to shelter the kids.

Even if Karlsson is a better player than Hayes, detracting from our tank, draft stock and prospect pool is the wrong way to go at this juncture. I do agree that Karlsson is probably gone with Stephenson this summer though, when looking at the VGK TDL acquisitions - assuming that Hannifin extends.

 

[Celtic Note]

I wouldn't mind picking up Wild Bill for a pair of mid round picks or a 3rd + C tier prospect - but I don't expect that gets it done. And I don't believe we should be spending any assets more valuable than a 3rd to bring in another insulating vet to shelter the kids.

Even if Karlsson is a better player than Hayes, detracting from our tank, draft stock and prospect pool is the wrong way to go at this juncture. I do agree that Karlsson is probably gone with Stephenson this summer though, when looking at the VGK TDL acquisitions - assuming that Hannifin extends.

This is where I am at too. If it’s a 3rd or less then so be it.

 

[Majorityof1]

In brief:

Darche seems to be one of the premier names on the list. He has been credited with much of the success of the Lightning in managing their cap in recent years as their DoPD and has apparently been invaluable to Julien Briesbois in negotiating contract extensions. Obviously part of the Stevie Y tree. If he could add transaction skills to his resume (perhaps learning as a GM in waiting for GMDA) he could arguably be the top candidate.

Gilman has been in the good old boy network for over 25 years, starting in 1998 as the DoHO for the Coyotes, but has never made it into the GM chair in that time frame. Teams along the way seem to have been content to ask him to run their AHL teams (where there isn't much need for cap management, contract negotiations and deal making skills) so the little I can find of his resume sounds like he is unlikely to be (or want to be) more than an AGM.

Martin has an almost identical resume as Gilman (different teams of course) but interestingly spent some time as an attorney and an agent before joining the Wings in 2005. His analytics role with the Wings (as well as his contracts and CBA experience) appear to be one of the reasons that the Rags hired him away in 2021, but like Gilman there doesn't really seem to be anything on his resume that screams "hire this guy" like Darche.

Castonguay is a feel good story (especially on the heels of International Women's Day) but her resume is still paper thin. With a few years as an agent and barely two years as an AGM, I think she will need a few more years (and a beefier resume) before getting any serious consideration for taking the keys to a franchise. She might end up being the GM of the Year by 2034 if her drive to do more and be better sustains.

Whitney, for whatever his intentions may be, seems to be more content to be a celebrity and a content creator than paying dues in an NHL front office. I suspect he was a candidate for the Sharks job (before they hired Grier) more for his connection to the organization than his qualifications, and I'm not surprised that he didn't get the hire. I don't see him being the guy Stillman brings in to "save" the Blues.

Langenbrunner, Brodeur and Pronger I would place in the "Brett Hull category" where they have more PR value around the organization than skills running a franchise. Unlike Whitney, they legitimately seem willing to pay their dues in the front office for a chance at a GM role. There is certainly value with them serving in the AGM role, but I see that as more of a buffer between the GM/DoHO and the roster players (because they have been there) while learning the day-to-day operations behind the scenes, but I don't see any of them as being imminent GM material. As previously pointed out, Pronger even recently withdrew from this role.

To summarize, of the list you provided, Darche is really the only viable candidate that I see from your list for an imminent hiring, and even he would either have to sink-or-swim as a deal maker (a skill that I think should be primary at the moment to reshape the current roster) with little to no experience there, or serve in an Associate GM (GM in waiting) capacity under Army before taking the reins permanently. Thanks, by the way, for not including Peter Chiarelli on your list.

Color me impressed. I pulled the list of an article about who could be the next GM from 2023. Whether you researched it or knew that info, kudos. You put together a solid response much more quickly than I'd have expected. I think you are still missing info on what AGMs do behind the scenes, but overall, nice, educational post.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's Vegas, if they want to move Karlsson they'll dump him wherever they can find a landing spot and worry about returns after. They've shown that in the past, they're not particularly worried about maximizing trade value as much as they are "I don't know where he's going, but he's sure as hell not staying here."

 

[Brian39]

It's Vegas, if they want to move Karlsson they'll dump him wherever they can find a landing spot and worry about returns after. They've shown that in the past, they're not particularly worried about maximizing trade value as much as they are "I don't know where he's going, but he's sure as hell not staying here."

Exactly my thoughts behind the idea. Karlsson's 10 team no-trade very well might eliminate most of the 'easy' cap dump destinations and there is a real advantage to freeing up the space quickly. The cap increasing by $4M definitely creates more wiggle room than teams have had in the last few years, but a lot of good teams have already allocated that increase to their own extensions/plans and it isn't like suddenly cap space is worthless.

If there winds up being a true bidding war for him, then I'm not all that interested. But I think it is realistic to think that the contract will reduce the amount of interested teams who like the on-ice player.

 

[Brian39]

If you restructure that best case, it's ... still messy. I see it as something like

Buchnevich-Thomas-Kyrou
Neighbours-$6M-????
Schenn-Hayes-Saad
Walker-Sunny-Toropchenko

$6M-Faulk
Leddy-Parayko
Krug-Kessel

Binner, Hofer

Is it better? Maybe marginally, but not 15 points better to the point you know this team is landing in a playoff spot. You're throwing a kid on the 2nd line, hoping he + MV63 + new guy = success. [If Schenn or Saad are up on the 2nd line instead of Neighbours, that would be bad.] That 3rd line could be great, or it could quickly become a black hole and opponents are skating laps around and through them. The 4th line is the 4th line. Krug/Kessel seemed to do OK, but that's been in short stints and not for 82 games. I wouldn't break up Leddy/Parayko absent an early-camp showing that Parayko + $6M = elite pairing.

Maybe the thing that jumps out to me: it's piling all the eggs into the basket re: Buchnevich. If that lineup works, great - it will go to the playoffs ... and we're not trading Buch at the deadline, and he's walking in the offseason. If that lineup doesn't work, you can still hopefully sell Buch at the deadline for a high price [if he's playing well and not hurt, and assuming it's not another weird trade deadline like this season] but now you have to look at Schenn, Hayes, Saad, Faulk, Leddy, Krug, whoever else and figure out how to rip them out and get assets for them because they're not getting any better, and it kicks off at least a semi-rebuild restructuring.

This is not the worst idea I can imagine for '24-25, but it requires finding the right $6M guys on the market and IMO it's edging back toward "everything has to go right" which worked great in '21-22, failed spectaularly last season and isn't cutting it this season

To be clear, I'm not advocating for just bringing in two guys and calling it a day on the summer.

I want Army aggressively trying to move Krug, which would include a conversation with his agent about waivers, actually assigning him to the AHL if he clears, and potentially even threatening a buyout if he intends to exercise his NTC aggressively. We have Krug in large part because of the difference between a NTC and NMC. I want this summer to be the time when Army exercises the contractual freedom that he deemed so important.

I want Army to diligently explore the market on Faulk, Saad, Leddy, and Hayes to see if there is a deal to be done with those guys. The ability to shed contracts will dictate how much we can change the roster for 2024/25, because we honestly are in more of a crunch for lineup spots than cap space.

With all that said, I do think that bringing in 2 quality players at C and LHD does more than just marginally improving the roster though. Not to contender status, but I think a large step forward in terms of on-ice product and results. But that improvement is very much a secondary concern of mine for bringing in a center.

Looking at your projected lines, I think a guy like Karlsson to put between Neighbours and Snuggy/Bolduc/whoever would still be extremely helpful to the long-term growth of the franchise. For Neighbours, next season needs to be about helping him round out his game in the non-net-front portions of the offensive zone. If we're counting on Snuggy/Bolduc in 2nd line NHL role, they need support on their line while they get their feet wet in the NHL. I trust a guy like Wild Bill to anchor a line with those two kids much more than I trust Schenn or Hayes to do it at this stage in their careers. I think Schenn is more capable of tangibly supporting a rookie in a 3rd line and/or wing role than as a 2C.

For me, spending money (and little else) to bring in a center is much more about providing support for the next wave of talent entering the roster in the next 24 months than it is about how many standings points we can pick up next year. Our incoming young wingers need better center play than what we got out of Schenn/Hayes this year and I'm not wild about relying/hoping on Schenn to have a big bounce back season next year.

 

[joe galiba]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for just bringing in two guys and calling it a day on the summer.

I want Army aggressively trying to move Krug, which would include a conversation with his agent about waivers, actually assigning him to the AHL if he clears, and potentially even threatening a buyout if he intends to exercise his NTC aggressively. We have Krug in large part because of the difference between a NTC and NMC. I want this summer to be the time when Army exercises the contractual freedom that he deemed so important.

I want Army to diligently explore the market on Faulk, Saad, Leddy, and Hayes to see if there is a deal to be done with those guys. The ability to shed contracts will dictate how much we can change the roster for 2024/25, because we honestly are in more of a crunch for lineup spots than cap space.

With all that said, I do think that bringing in 2 quality players at C and LHD does more than just marginally improving the roster though. Not to contender status, but I think a large step forward in terms of on-ice product and results. But that improvement is very much a secondary concern of mine for bringing in a center.

Looking at your projected lines, I think a guy like Karlsson to put between Neighbours and Snuggy/Bolduc/whoever would still be extremely helpful to the long-term growth of the franchise. For Neighbours, next season needs to be about helping him round out his game in the non-net-front portions of the offensive zone. If we're counting on Snuggy/Bolduc in 2nd line NHL role, they need support on their line while they get their feet wet in the NHL. I trust a guy like Wild Bill to anchor a line with those two kids much more than I trust Schenn or Hayes to do it at this stage in their careers. I think Schenn is more capable of tangibly supporting a rookie in a 3rd line and/or wing role than as a 2C.

For me, spending money (and little else) to bring in a center is much more about providing support for the next wave of talent entering the roster in the next 24 months than it is about how many standings points we can pick up next year. Our incoming young wingers need better center play than what we got out of Schenn/Hayes this year and I'm not wild about relying/hoping on Schenn to have a big bounce back season next year.

this 1000%
2C is far and away the biggest black hole on the team, improvement there would help the offense and defense, even if we don't add a LHD
Neighbors has struggled with Schenn as his center (other than his work net-front) and putting Snuggy in that spot is not a recipe for success
adding a two way, hard working 2C, hopefully with some wheels, has to be the first priority
upgrading the LHD is secondary to this (while still very much needed)

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I want Army aggressively trying to move Krug, which would include a conversation with his agent about waivers, actually assigning him to the AHL if he clears, and potentially even threatening a buyout if he intends to exercise his NTC aggressively.

1. Want to waive Krug, see if anyone else will take him for free? Sure, fine. Whatever. He probably clears, simply because no one wants to pick up $6.5M on the cap straight-up for a 33-year old defenseman who's getting weaker on offense and already is poor on defense without moving crap cap dollars off their own roster, but if you think you're going to prove something about his worth to the rest of the league by doing that, ... OK. Good luck with that.

2. There is no way Krug is going to Springfield. Like, "I will bet my existence on HF vs. anyone else's existence on HF" kind of none. If I'm Krug's agent and Armstrong makes that threat, I ultimate-dog-dare Armstrong to do it. The moment Armstrong goes to ownership and says "I want you guys to agree to pay Krug $8.5 million this season to go play in Springfield" and when asked why, responds with "because he wouldn't waive his NTC for me" is the moment I think someone in ownership says "no, no f***ing way I'm paying a guy $8.5 million to go play in the minors" and Armstrong is either fired on the spot or told "do it and you're fired." There is an infinitely better chance ownership agrees to a buyout.

3. I would never fault a player for exercising his NTC to block a trade, no matter how aggressively he exercises it. If you didn't want him to exercise it, you shouldn't have given it to him in the first place. To hold that against a player, especially when you're the guy who handed him the NTC in the first place, is a great way to get other players to demand a NMC instead or to get some players and agents - including ones you want to deal with, including guys in the system right now - to steer clear knowing when you say "I'll give you a NTC" you're going to be petty about it when it doesn't suit you.

4. If you want to buy Krug out, just do it. Don't make threats about "either waive your NTC and take whatever trade I find, or I'm buying you out" - something that's going to get remembered for the reasons noted in #3. Just say "look, we're moving on, good luck elsewhere" and send the paperwork and take the cap hit.

In this whole "dealing with Krug" thing: have some class. Don't act like a shitty 12-year old boy who asked Jenny Jones in 6th grade out and she told you no, and now you're pissed off at the world about it.

 

[MissouriMook]

Color me impressed. I pulled the list of an article about who could be the next GM from 2023. Whether you researched it or knew that info, kudos. You put together a solid response much more quickly than I'd have expected. I think you are still missing info on what AGMs do behind the scenes, but overall, nice, educational post.

To be fair, Darche was the only one where I had any significant previous knowledge due to Tampa being my #2 team, but the non-“brand names” were pretty easy to research. I’m sure my depth of knowledge of what goes on in an NHL front office is average at best.

Darche would be at the top of my list if we were to move on from Army (which I have opposed) in terms of known likely candidates, but in terms of skills I feel like the ability to make deals (which requires a good relationship with the other GMs around the league) would be the most important skill relative to our immediate needs.

 

[Spektre]

1. Want to waive Krug, see if anyone else will take him for free? Sure, fine. Whatever. He probably clears, simply because no one wants to pick up $6.5M on the cap straight-up for a 33-year old defenseman who's getting weaker on offense and already is poor on defense without moving crap cap dollars off their own roster, but if you think you're going to prove something about his worth to the rest of the league by doing that, ... OK. Good luck with that.

2. There is no way Krug is going to Springfield. Like, "I will bet my existence on HF vs. anyone else's existence on HF" kind of none. If I'm Krug's agent and Armstrong makes that threat, I ultimate-dog-dare Armstrong to do it. The moment Armstrong goes to ownership and says "I want you guys to agree to pay Krug $8.5 million this season to go play in Springfield" and when asked why, responds with "because he wouldn't waive his NTC for me" is the moment I think someone in ownership says "no, no f***ing way I'm paying a guy $8.5 million to go play in the minors" and Armstrong is either fired on the spot or told "do it and you're fired." There is an infinitely better chance ownership agrees to a buyout.

3. I would never fault a player for exercising his NTC to block a trade, no matter how aggressively he exercises it. If you didn't want him to exercise it, you shouldn't have given it to him in the first place. To hold that against a player, especially when you're the guy who handed him the NTC in the first place, is a great way to get other players to demand a NMC instead or to get some players and agents - including ones you want to deal with, including guys in the system right now - to steer clear knowing when you say "I'll give you a NTC" you're going to be petty about it when it doesn't suit you.

4. If you want to buy Krug out, just do it. Don't make threats about "either waive your NTC and take whatever trade I find, or I'm buying you out" - something that's going to get remembered for the reasons noted in #3. Just say "look, we're moving on, good luck elsewhere" and send the paperwork and take the cap hit.

In this whole "dealing with Krug" thing: have some class. Don't act like a shitty 12-year old boy who asked Jenny Jones in 6th grade out and she told you no, and now you're pissed off at the world about it.

Too many absolutes.

It's possible that Army tells Krug or his agent the threat is real of being sent down. To avoid that scenario, it's possible Krug waves his NTC. Who knows?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Too many absolutes.

It's possible that Army tells Krug or his agent the threat is real of being sent down. To avoid that scenario, it's possible Krug waves his NTC. Who knows?

Look, I appreciate all the dreaming, the fanciful well in a perfect world imagination that ignores any negative consequences and pretends players are so scared of a threat of going to the minors or a buyout that they'll surrender any and all contractual rights they have to avoid it or any other threats from a GM and do whatever the GM wants without question, but let's be serious here.

The threat isn't real. Oh, he'll say it's real, swear to f***ing God it's real. It's not. If I'm Krug and his agent, there is no way I hear Doug Armstrong make that threat and say whoa, shit, Doug sounds like he's really serious, I guess we need to take the first trade he has available even it's to Shit City just so Torey doesn't have to go to Springfield. I laugh until someone has to call an ambulance and rush me to the ER because I can't stop laughing, because I've split my sides and all of my guts have spilled out, and weeks later after I'm finally out of surgery and vaguely healed up I have Doug come visit and the first words out of my mouth are "let's see you f***ing try it."

After 2 seasons of not making the playoffs I cannot imagine any scenario where Doug Armstrong walks into a room with ownership and proclaims "I need you all to agree to fork out $8.5 million on a guy to play in the minors all season instead of with the big club, because I'm angry at him for not waiving his NTC ... but I don't want to buy him out, because that would be wasting your money" and comes out of there with both his job and a green light from ownership to do it. He will have his ass ripped so wide open you could float the Queen of the Mississippi through it with no one at the helm and still not have to worry about hitting one of his cheeks.

To believe Armstong will be able to send Krug down is to believe ownership hears this pitch and says some version of well, Doug, can you show us what your actuary table looks like for this? ... Yep, the math checks out, $8.5 million for him to play in Springfield, and then maybe another $6.5 million next year, and maybe another $6 million the year after if he still won't waive and you're still pissed off about it - that's $21 million in real dollars and about $15.6 million against the cap, $5.2 million per year that you can't use for actual improvements for the actual team playing at Enterprise Center which makes it harder for us to be competitive like you say you can make us, but your actuary table says this makes sense ... that would definitely be better for us, a much more responsible use of our money, than us paying him $14 million spread across 6 years and taking $12.5 million on the cap, spread across 6 years for him to leave. OK, Doug, you're the man, go do it.

You are much better off - and it will be easier, and have many fewer complications - to go find out who he would waive his NTC for [or who he won't waive his NTC for], talk to teams, try to find a match that moves him for whatever you can get and move him that way, than you are to be a petty little bitch and stamp your foot because you're not getting your way and do something that is very much a "cut off your nose to spite your face" solution that will have significant negative implications down the road because goddamn it, I'm the GM, people will do what I say or I'll put the fear of Doug f***ing Armstrong into them that would only be made more perfect by him wearing a Gumby suit when he says it.

 

[stl76]

The moment Armstrong goes to ownership and says "I want you guys to agree to pay Krug $8.5 million this season to go play in Springfield" and when asked why, responds with "because he wouldn't waive his NTC for me" is the moment I think someone in ownership says "no, no f***ing way I'm paying a guy $8.5 million to go play in the minors" and Armstrong is either fired on the spot or told "do it and you're fired."

Weird take. Strong disagree.

 

[Stealth JD]

Weird take. Strong disagree.

You let Krug sit in the AHL for two weeks, he’ll take a trade to San Jose, Ottawa or any other NHL town the second the option materializes.

 

[stl76]

You let Krug sit in the AHL for two weeks, he’ll take a trade to San Jose, Ottawa or any other NHL town the second the option materializes.

I’m not sure how Krug would react TBH.

Just think this idea that there is zero chance he’d get waived and that Armstrong would be fired on the spot for suggesting it is absurd and not based on reality.

 

[AyeBah]

You let Krug sit in the AHL for two weeks, he’ll take a trade to San Jose, Ottawa or any other NHL town the second the option materializes.

Those 12 hour bus rides and soggy sandwiches will have him waiving for any market lmao

 

[Spektre]

Look, I appreciate all the dreaming, the fanciful well in a perfect world imagination that ignores any negative consequences and pretends players are so scared of a threat of going to the minors or a buyout that they'll surrender any and all contractual rights they have to avoid it or any other threats from a GM and do whatever the GM wants without question, but let's be serious here.

The threat isn't real. Oh, he'll say it's real, swear to f***ing God it's real. It's not. If I'm Krug and his agent, there is no way I hear Doug Armstrong make that threat and say whoa, shit, Doug sounds like he's really serious, I guess we need to take the first trade he has available even it's to Shit City just so Torey doesn't have to go to Springfield. I laugh until someone has to call an ambulance and rush me to the ER because I can't stop laughing, because I've split my sides and all of my guts have spilled out, and weeks later after I'm finally out of surgery and vaguely healed up I have Doug come visit and the first words out of my mouth are "let's see you f***ing try it."

After 2 seasons of not making the playoffs I cannot imagine any scenario where Doug Armstrong walks into a room with ownership and proclaims "I need you all to agree to fork out $8.5 million on a guy to play in the minors all season instead of with the big club, because I'm angry at him for not waiving his NTC ... but I don't want to buy him out, because that would be wasting your money" and comes out of there with both his job and a green light from ownership to do it. He will have his ass ripped so wide open you could float the Queen of the Mississippi through it with no one at the helm and still not have to worry about hitting one of his cheeks.

To believe Armstong will be able to send Krug down is to believe ownership hears this pitch and says some version of well, Doug, can you show us what your actuary table looks like for this? ... Yep, the math checks out, $8.5 million for him to play in Springfield, and then maybe another $6.5 million next year, and maybe another $6 million the year after if he still won't waive and you're still pissed off about it - that's $21 million in real dollars and about $15.6 million against the cap, $5.2 million per year that you can't use for actual improvements for the actual team playing at Enterprise Center which makes it harder for us to be competitive like you say you can make us, but your actuary table says this makes sense ... that would definitely be better for us, a much more responsible use of our money, than us paying him $14 million spread across 6 years and taking $12.5 million on the cap, spread across 6 years for him to leave. OK, Doug, you're the man, go do it.

You are much better off - and it will be easier, and have many fewer complications - to go find out who he would waive his NTC for [or who he won't waive his NTC for], talk to teams, try to find a match that moves him for whatever you can get and move him that way, than you are to be a petty little bitch and stamp your foot because you're not getting your way and do something that is very much a "cut off your nose to spite your face" solution that will have significant negative implications down the road because goddamn it, I'm the GM, people will do what I say or I'll put the fear of Doug f***ing Armstrong into them that would only be made more perfect by him wearing a Gumby suit when he says it.

Too much information haha

You are saying it’s not even in the realm of possibility and I disagree.

If I was forced to guess, I’d say Krug plays for the Blues next year.

Nobody knows though.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You let Krug sit in the AHL for two weeks, he’ll take a trade to San Jose, Ottawa or any other NHL town the second the option materializes.

Because that worked wonders for every other player who was ever assigned to the minors because they wouldn't take a trade to wherever.

Oh, wait. It didn't. It only caused players to increasingly demand NMCs to avoid being sent to the minors, to reinforce their contractually-agreed upon, CBA-protected no-trade clause.

I’m not sure how Krug would react TBH.

I'm sure he has zero pride, no self-esteem, just wants to be loved by someone, will do whatever it takes to get love and affection even if it means rolling over like a beached whale and completely surrendering.

Same for his agent. Probably thankful his guy is in the league in any capacity. They're probably collectively so sorry about his play, if contracts could be renegotiated Krug would take the league minimum and then pay half of it back, and his agent would pay his commission directly to the team.

Just think this idea that there is zero chance he’d get waived and that Armstrong would be fired on the spot for suggesting it is absurd and not based on reality.

No, it's not that there's zero chance he'd get waived. I wouldn't be surprised if we waived him. Pointless, likely, wouldn't prove anything just like getting waived in-season around the trade deadline doesn't prove that guy has no value at all when someone later trades for him by moving a contract in return, but ... that's much less risk.

It's zero chance he gets assigned to the AHL and Armstrong still has a job.

Those 12 hour bus rides and soggy sandwiches will have him waiving for any market lmao

Yeah, that totally got Wade Redden to quit on his contract the 2 years he was on the bus.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You are saying it’s not even in the realm of possibility and I disagree.

You're allowed to disagree. But this notion that Armstrong would hang it out there as a threat is ...

If this were a real thing, if it was something that worked even a fraction of the time, you would hear about GMs doing this - threatening buyouts and AHL assignments - every offseason, and you would see a parade of guys getting bought out or getting shoved in the minors because they wouldn't agree to waive their NTC for whatever destination the GM wanted them to go to.

And, you would almost certainly see players in response demand NMCs to protect themselves as much as possible and make their contracts as buyout-proof as possible, and demand as much signing bonus money as possible so they were guaranteed that and didn't lose money in a buyout. Even more so than they already are.

The fact is: it doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because GMs know it doesn't work. They know it's terrible business, it burns bridges with agents and other players take notice and it makes dealing with them and their agents more difficult. They know the moment they play that card, the player and his agent is calling his bluff and now he has to decide whether to put up or STFU.

* If he calls, he "wins" but now has signaled to everyone else "get every possible protection you can in a contract, because I'll try to f*** you over whenever I feel like it" and he makes contract talks vastly more difficult. And, he probably gets his team stuck on NTC lists because players don't want to deal with his threats when he gets a burr up his ass. But, he "won" that standoff, so ... yay him.
* If he STFU, everyone knows to ignore his whining and crying because whatever his bluster is, he's never doing a goddamn thing which makes him look weak and hurts him in every negotiation going forward.

I'm telling you all, Armstrong pulls the "waive your NTC or I'm sending you to Springfield" card and we're all going to know about it quickly and you're going to hear instant shit from players and agents around the league, and it will make going after attractive free agents or signing them to friendly deals fantastically more difficult. Getting rid of Krug by threatening him in whatever way is not worth that.

If I was forced to guess, I’d say Krug plays for the Blues next year.

Ranking of possible scenarios:

1. Krug is still with the Blues.
2. Krug gets traded.
3. Krug gets bought out.
4. Krug just up and decides to retire.
5. Krug decides to go play in Europe.
6. Krug has an offseason accident, can't play any more.
7. Krug has some offseason surgery, gets implanted with bionic powers.
8. Krug is cloned and split into "Good Krug" and "Bad Krug" but only one is available at a time, and Good Krug is available 75% of the time.
.
.
47. Krug gets lost in the Bermuda Triangle, is never heard from again.
.
.
.
112,000,000,003. Krug gets assigned to Springfield.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Weird take. Strong disagree.

Agreed. Army held firm on the NMC vs. NTC, seemingly with top-down approval. For ownership to then lambast him for sticking to negotiating this contractual point and then actually leveraging it when the time comes sounds farfetched.

At the end of the day, I don't think anything this dramatic is going to happen, mainly b/c I think Krug is going to see the writing on the wall that getting bought out is possibly the end of his career, if not at the very least a huge reduction in his potential overall earnings. Krug is currently guaranteed 21M dollars over the next three years of his contract. A buyout reduces that to 14M. This summer he's going to be a 33 year old undersized Dman coming off two disappointing seasons in which he was clearly exposed as an unfit top 4 everyday player. Does he really believe he can make up 7M dollars on the open market over the next 2-4 years of his career, if it even lasts that long?

I think AT BEST he's looking at a Shattenkirk type scenario where he jumps to a contender on a 1 year deal for around 1-2M and has a monster bounceback season with a crazy good playoffs, then convinces some rebuilding team that wants veteran leadership to massively overpay him on a 2-3 year deal. There are two issues with this path:

1. Shattenkirk started down this road when he was 30 and got bought out, Krug will start at 33. That age gap is pretty substantial as Shattenkirk got to cash in on his "Veteran Leadership," (With a Ring) at 31 instead of 34.
2. Shattenkirk got extremely lucky to get a contract with the Lightning, as they had a real need for a RHD to pair with one of their LH monsters in Hedman, Sergachev, or (at the time) McDonagh. I can't think of a team out there with a plethora of RHD that can all carry a pairing the way the Lightning had with LHD in 2020.

In short, the stars aligned for Shattenkirk to get his 3.9M deal with Anahiem in 2021. For Krug, it's much more likely he will have to settle for a bunch of one year, 1-1.5M dollar deals, as no one is going to sign a smaller, mid-30's defenseman who can't play in the top 4 and frankly hasn't shown the ability to drive success on the PP recently either for big money or term, even if he wins a Cup and can provide, "Veteran Leadership." I think if he gets bought out he's looking at anywhere between a 3-5 million dollar difference in his career earnings.

TLDR - The calculus has changed since last off-season and I think Krug is far more willing to accept a trade vs. getting bought out and losing out on some serious career earnings.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Agreed. Army held firm on the NMC vs. NTC, seemingly with top-down approval. For ownership to then lambast him for sticking to negotiating this contractual point and then actually leveraging it when the time comes sounds farfetched.

At the end of the day, I don't think anything this dramatic is going to happen, mainly b/c I think Krug is going to see the writing on the wall that getting bought out is possibly the end of his career, if not at the very least a huge reduction in his potential overall earnings. Krug is currently guaranteed 21M dollars over the next three years of his contract. A buyout reduces that to 14M. This summer he's going to be a 33 year old undersized Dman coming off two disappointing seasons in which he was clearly exposed as an unfit top 4 everyday player. Does he really believe he can make up 7M dollars on the open market over the next 2-4 years of his career, if it even lasts that long?

I think AT BEST he's looking at a Shattenkirk type scenario where he jumps to a contender on a 1 year deal for around 1-2M and has a monster bounceback season with a crazy good playoffs, then convinces some rebuilding team that wants veteran leadership to massively overpay him on a 2-3 year deal. There are two issues with this path:

1. Shattenkirk started down this road when he was 30 and got bought out, Krug will start at 33. That age gap is pretty substantial as Shattenkirk got to cash in on his "Veteran Leadership," (With a Ring) at 31 instead of 34.
2. Shattenkirk got extremely lucky to get a contract with the Lightning, as they had a real need for a RHD to pair with one of their LH monsters in Hedman, Sergachev, or (at the time) McDonagh. I can't think of a team out there with a plethora of RHD that can all carry a pairing the way the Lightning had with LHD in 2020.

In short, the stars aligned for Shattenkirk to get his 3.9M deal with Anahiem in 2021. For Krug, it's much more likely he will have to settle for a bunch of one year, 1-1.5M dollar deals, as no one is going to sign a smaller, mid-30's defenseman who can't play in the top 4 and frankly hasn't shown the ability to drive success on the PP recently either for big money or term, even if he wins a Cup and can provide, "Veteran Leadership." I think if he gets bought out he's looking at anywhere between a 3-5 million dollar difference in his career earnings.

TLDR - The calculus has changed since last off-season and I think Krug is far more willing to accept a trade vs. getting bought out and losing out on some serious career earnings.

Krug blocked trade bc he didn’t want to go to crappy Philly team, didn’t want to play for torts, and his wife was expecting. Situation this summer is different. I expect if we deal him this summer, at least to a us team, he will agree to go.

 

[TheOrganist]

To believe Armstong will be able to send Krug down is to believe ownership hears this pitch and says some version of well, Doug, can you show us what your actuary table looks like for this? ... Yep, the math checks out, $8.5 million for him to play in Springfield, and then maybe another $6.5 million next year, and maybe another $6 million the year after if he still won't waive and you're still pissed off about it - that's $21 million in real dollars and about $15.6 million against the cap, $5.2 million per year that you can't use for actual improvements for the actual team playing at Enterprise Center which makes it harder for us to be competitive like you say you can make us, but your actuary table says this makes sense ...

I honestly didn't know you get such little Cap relief when you waive a player with a one-way contract. I get the real dollar implications for a small-mid market team that has to eat significant money over 3-4 yrs for a veteran scrub buried in the minors but I thought the Cap relief was greater for some reason. He's unmovable. Buyout or nada.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I honestly didn't know you get such little Cap relief when you waive a player with a one-way contract. I get the real dollar implications for a small-mid market team that has to eat significant money over 3-4 yrs for a veteran scrub buried in the minors but I thought the Cap relief was greater for some reason. He's unmovable. Buyout or nada.

There are lots of guys with crappy contract. I suspect we can deal him for another one this summer who might be better fit.