Blues Trade Proposals 2023-2024

[bleedblue1223]

Pesce and Skjei seem like we are asking for the same problems we are or will have with Krug, Schenn and Faulk (probably even Parayko at some point). If we only had one or maybe two guys with those types of contracts, that would be one thing. Having three and likely four is just too much. I am forgetting how long Leddy and Saad contracts, so maybe their are included to lesser degrees too.

Saad and Leddy are 2 more years after this, 1 year less than Krug/Faulk. Their cap hits are much more manageable and I'd say they are producing at the level you'd want for their cap hits.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Right, basically what Tampa did with McDonagh.

And the Blues did with Doug Weight.

 

[Celtic Note]

Saad and Leddy are 2 more years after this, 1 year less than Krug/Faulk. Their cap hits are much more manageable and I'd say they are producing at the level you'd want for their cap hits.

Saad is still ok.
I think his play has fallen off this year, but not enough that it is a big deal on a bad team.

Leddy I actually think has surpassed expectations.

I just couldn’t remember the team. Late night and early morning has my brain hazy.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don’t know anyone who suggested, "waive your goddamn NTC for wherever the hell I want to send you, or I'm buying your ass out."

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.

Check and see if you have Brian on ignore. If you don't, .... I swear, it's like people don't read here.

But Ted, he didn't say those exact words. "I didn't threaten to kill him if he didn't move, I just said if he was still there in 15 seconds I was going to make sure he never saw another sunrise."

My approach was to go to him and say, “the club has decided to move on. We thank you for your contributions, but we need to try something different. You’re not in those plans.

We will attempt to find a trade-partner to pick up your contract, but if that’s not possible we will be assigning you to Springfield”.

I guarantee he won’t be so picky with his destination at that point.

I guarantee you're wrong. And, I guarantee the moment Armstrong goes to ownership and says he wants to pay Krug $8.5 million to play in Springfield because Krug wouldn't waive his NTC, someone in ownership refuses to sign off and demands Armstrong's resignation on the spot.

For someone who's been so adamant about being a good steward of ownership's money and not being irresponsible about it, deciding to pay $8.5 million for a guy to play somewhere else and then hope that does the trick without a Plan B until the next offseason if it doesn't work [and then maybe have to do it yet again] is ... not ... being a good steward of ownership's money. And especially knowing he'd still count $5.35 million on the cap and that's $5.35 million that can't be spent on real improvements to the team because the GM is pissed at the player and decided to act like a spoiled kid, ... someone in ownership is going to flip their shit.

But you don't know any of that! Yeah, people don't know what happened in the Pietrangelo trade talks, but that hasn't stopped them from asserting what has to be true, running with it accordingly, and demanding everyone else believe it, any points to the contrary be damned. I'm just saying, you watch Armstrong in the "Berube fired" press conference, I think it's really clear he got his ass dragged by someone and he knows he doesn't have carte blanche any more - and I think he is never going to ownership with an $8.5 million minor league request.

As usual, YMMV.

I’m sure Wade Redden would’ve welcomed a trade to Buffalo or Anaheim as opposed to the AHL.

According to teh capsite Redden didn't have any trade protection so if there were any trade offers from any other team, the Rangers could have pulled the trigger on one and never had to worry about going to Redden about it.

[I took a quick look through my files, I don't see the one that has everyone's NTC/NMC status so I can't say whether he had trade protection or not. I want to say he had a NTC but I can't confirm that at the moment. But even pretending he had a NTC, I don't see anything to suggest whether there were any offers for Redden so what he would have done if presented with a trade offer to Anaheim, Buffalo, Edmonton or Florida is a moot point: it was never an option to begin with.]

He lasted in the minors until the Blues came calling because he wasn’t worth the contract, and ultimately proved that he was in fact washed up.

He "lasted in the minors" until the Rangers bought his contract out in 2013 in the round of compliance buyouts. Without that, he'd have stayed there another 2 years and collected his final $10 million. I'm sure there were teams - like, say, the Blues - who might have been interested in him at $800,000 or so. He was never giving up $23 million in guaranteed salary to get back in the NHL for $800,000,

 

[Brockon]

Check and see if you have Brian on ignore. If you don't, .... I swear, it's like people don't read here.

But Ted, he didn't say those exact words. "I didn't threaten to kill him if he didn't move, I just said if he was still there in 15 seconds I was going to make sure he never saw another sunrise."


I guarantee you're wrong. And, I guarantee the moment Armstrong goes to ownership and says he wants to pay Krug $8.5 million to play in Springfield because Krug wouldn't waive his NTC, someone in ownership refuses to sign off and demands Armstrong's resignation on the spot.

For someone who's been so adamant about being a good steward of ownership's money and not being irresponsible about it, deciding to pay $8.5 million for a guy to play somewhere else and then hope that does the trick without a Plan B until the next offseason if it doesn't work [and then maybe have to do it yet again] is ... not ... being a good steward of ownership's money. And especially knowing he'd still count $5.35 million on the cap and that's $5.35 million that can't be spent on real improvements to the team because the GM is pissed at the player and decided to act like a spoiled kid, ... someone in ownership is going to flip their shit.

But you don't know any of that! Yeah, people don't know what happened in the Pietrangelo trade talks, but that hasn't stopped them from asserting what has to be true, running with it accordingly, and demanding everyone else believe it, any points to the contrary be damned. I'm just saying, you watch Armstrong in the "Berube fired" press conference, I think it's really clear he got his ass dragged by someone and he knows he doesn't have carte blanche any more - and I think he is never going to ownership with an $8.5 million minor league request.

As usual, YMMV.


According to teh capsite Redden didn't have any trade protection so if there were any trade offers from any other team, the Rangers could have pulled the trigger on one and never had to worry about going to Redden about it.

[I took a quick look through my files, I don't see the one that has everyone's NTC/NMC status so I can't say whether he had trade protection or not. I want to say he had a NTC but I can't confirm that at the moment. But even pretending he had a NTC, I don't see anything to suggest whether there were any offers for Redden so what he would have done if presented with a trade offer to Anaheim, Buffalo, Edmonton or Florida is a moot point: it was never an option to begin with.]


He "lasted in the minors" until the Rangers bought his contract out in 2013 in the round of compliance buyouts. Without that, he'd have stayed there another 2 years and collected his final $10 million. I'm sure there were teams - like, say, the Blues - who might have been interested in him at $800,000 or so. He was never giving up $23 million in guaranteed salary to get back in the NHL for $800,000,

Probably not, he spent a good chunk of that on the lakefront property I moved Redden into in Kelowna, BC in the summer of 2013 - I'd hazard a guess that likely cost north of 3m at the time.

As an aside, Wade was a super chill and down to earth guy. Really neat experience relative to the usual people employing furniture movers in the area, where we were typically dismissed as necessary inconveniences or lesser people because of the job we worked.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Saad is still ok.
I think his play has fallen off this year, but not enough that it is a big deal on a bad team.

Leddy I actually think has surpassed expectations.

I just couldn’t remember the team. Late night and early morning has my brain hazy.

I had similar thoughts, but I started digging into stats lately, and saw noticed that Saad is 3rd among our forwards in 5v5 scoring, 1 ahead of Buchnevich. Maybe he's having a better year than I originally thought. If I take out his recent stretch of 5 points in 5 games, he'd be 4th on the team in 5v5 scoring, 4 behind Buch.

He's one of those guys that doesn't do anything sexy, but just gets his typical production.

 

[Brian39]

If you want to say "look, I've rethought this, I was wrong, let me restate" fine.

Once again, I will state my opinion that Army should have a conversation with Krug and his agent about the team believing that it is time to move on from him as a member of the St. Louis Blues 23 man roster. That conversation needs to include a discussion about every mechanism available to the Blues to accomplish that goal, including the one that will tangibly cost him money. Those mechanisms are by their very nature, a threat that a player's circumstances can change unfavorably.

You created a scenario where Army is going into that meeting guns blazing, swearing at the player, making demands, and saying that any waivers/buyout move is punitive toward the player and not something done to try to benefit the team. Those are your words, not mine. So no, I'm not restating anything since I didn't say that nonsense.

You have assumed a ton of malice that I haven't remotely advocated for.

Hopefully, you realize there is a quantum difference between a GM going to a player and saying "look, I'm thinking about buying you out but I'm willing to try and help out as much as I can, let me know where you're be willing to waive your NTC to go to and I'll see what I can do" and exhausting those options and maybe having another discussion before moving to a buyout, and "waive your goddamn NTC for wherever the hell I want to send you, or I'm buying your ass out."

I'm OK with the first approach. You and others were [maybe still are] advocating the 2nd approach.

What you wrote and are okay with is quite literally a conversation with the player that includes the threat of a buyout if he doesn't waive his NTC. You do realize that, right? This is exactly the type of conversation I've been advocating for, except I would aslo be including the possibility that we might waive him and eventually assign him to the AHL before reaching a point where we buy him out.

The fact that you have spouted off a bunch of hypothetical strawman scenarios of Army cursing at the player and making demands doesn't change the thing I advocated for.

 

[Celtic Note]

I had similar thoughts, but I started digging into stats lately, and saw noticed that Saad is 3rd among our forwards in 5v5 scoring, 1 ahead of Buchnevich. Maybe he's having a better year than I originally thought. If I take out his recent stretch of 5 points in 5 games, he'd be 4th on the team in 5v5 scoring, 4 behind Buch.

He's one of those guys that doesn't do anything sexy, but just gets his typical production.

With Saad I am less disappointed in his offense and more in his D, but given the numbers you found for offense maybe his defense is also better than the eye test suggests?

 

[bleedblue1223]

With Saad I am less disappointed in his offense and more in his D, but given the numbers you found for offense maybe his defense is also better than the eye test suggests?

Maybe? Haven't really looked to compare to prior year metrics. For me, he sort of falls in the bucket of more or less meets expectations and his salary, but I really wish we had more talent in the middle 6, and the lack of talent might be influencing more of a negative view towards everyone in the middle 6. If along with Neighbours, Schenn, Saad, and Hayes, we had 2 other guys that were genuine 2nd liners, how would we then view the group?

How quickly can Bolduc jump to having middle 6 scoring production? Is Snuggerud someone that can have an instant impact or will he have a developmental period when it comes to production?

 

[Celtic Note]

Maybe? Haven't really looked to compare to prior year metrics. For me, he sort of falls in the bucket of more or less meets expectations and his salary, but I really wish we had more talent in the middle 6, and the lack of talent might be influencing more of a negative view towards everyone in the middle 6. If along with Neighbours, Schenn, Saad, and Hayes, we had 2 other guys that were genuine 2nd liners, how would we then view the group?

How quickly can Bolduc jump to having middle 6 scoring production? Is Snuggerud someone that can have an instant impact or will he have a developmental period when it comes to production?

I think we have to give all rookies a minimum of one significant portion of a season in the NHL before we can expect them to have any meaningful impact. But sometimes people come in and play well off the hop.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I had similar thoughts, but I started digging into stats lately, and saw noticed that Saad is 3rd among our forwards in 5v5 scoring, 1 ahead of Buchnevich. Maybe he's having a better year than I originally thought. If I take out his recent stretch of 5 points in 5 games, he'd be 4th on the team in 5v5 scoring, 4 behind Buch.

He's one of those guys that doesn't do anything sexy, but just gets his typical production.

you don't notice saad out there bc he doesn't do anything most of the time. he has skill and scores at decent rate, but he has to be least active player on the team. there are nights where i bet he doesn't even need to shower after the game.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Once again, I will state my opinion that Army should have a conversation with Krug and his agent about the team believing that it is time to move on from him as a member of the St. Louis Blues 23 man roster. That conversation needs to include a discussion about every mechanism available to the Blues to accomplish that goal, including the one that will tangibly cost him money. Those mechanisms are by their very nature, a threat that a player's circumstances can change unfavorably.

There's the key word. It's still a threat. From the Cambridge Dictionary:

a suggestion that something unpleasant or violent will happen, especially if a particular action or order is not followed

to be in a situation where people are threatening you or something else with something bad or unpleasant

a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, esp. if the person does not do something in particular

the possibility that something unwanted will happen, or a person or thing that is likely to cause something unwanted to happen​

Among the things needed to not be a threat: one has to have a choice that avoids the possibility of a negative outcome for themselves. There is no such choice here as you originally presented it, and as you're still presenting it now. Krug can give up his rights to decide where he wants to play by accepting a trade to somewhere he doesn't want to play, or he can get bought out / shipped to the AHL and the "choice" is reliant upon him giving up contractual rights granted to him. Neither outcome is "positive" for him unless one twists it into "well, he can still have an NHL job with this contract or he can have _______" which gets us back to the definition of the word threat.

You seem to think, based on your continuing arguments, that the "good of the team" is paramount to Krug's rights, and Krug can either do what's bad for him but "good for the team" or he can suffer consequences for it. Which, I don't care how many ways you want to try and spin that, still constitutes a threat. If you don't think that, then you need to explain yourself better without painting a picture of a "negotiation" in which one party has a desired goal and a second party must take an action(s) - even [especially] action(s) against its own interests - to help the first party achieve its goal, or the first party will take various actions against the second would not be done except for the second party's refusal to act against its own interests.

Cause ... I'm only an actuary, I'm not an English major or anything, but I've sat in a number of negotiations where someone made a threat to someone else; what you've been describing Armstrong should do sure sounds a hell of a lot like one of those times when someone made a threat, and I don't think I need an actuary table to help me understand what is a threat and what isn't.

You created a scenario where Army is going into that meeting guns blazing, swearing at the player, making demands, and saying that any waivers/buyout move is punitive toward the player and not something done to try to benefit the team. Those are your words, not mine.

This is exactly the bullshit I knew you'd pull.

Army should tell Krug if he doesn't waive his NTC, Army is going to buy him out or demote him to Springfield.

THAT'S NOT A THREAT, though. I'M NOT SAYING he needs to threaten him. YOU'RE the one saying cursing has to be involved, and it doesn't! I'm just saying he needs to ... say things in way that makes it really clear it's a 1-way conversation about what's going to happen and what Krug has to do to make that happen. And if he doesn't do it, Armstrong is going to do other stuff to him as a result that's not pleasant for Krug, that inflicts distress on Krug, that attempts to force Krug to do what Armstrong wants to avoid that distress, while making it feel like it's a 2-way conversation and Krug has a voluntary choice in what happens. Even though it's not voluntary at all and ultimately Krug has to do what Armstrong says or suffer the consequences. Which ... is a threat, but it's not a threat like anyone else defines it or understands that word to mean. This is different, because ... it's different .... because ... it's ... just ... different.

This equivocating, "it's not like a buyout or demotion is punitive to the player because it's really more for the benefit of the team" crap is like an employer going to an employee and saying "you either work weekends for the next 4 months with no extra pay, or you're getting demoted with a pay cut" and someone arguing "it wasn't a threat, they had a choice in the matter" and "that pay cut and demotion thing that happened when they didn't work weekends? That wasn't punitive, that's ... just how business goes sometimes" and ignoring that it was a purely either/or situation in which there was no scenario that the employee could refuse to work weekends and stay where they were; the "choice" was in which negative outcome they preferred to have.

They were sacrificing something either way "for the good of the company," their "choice" was in how they wanted to get screwed over and if they didn't do what the company wanted, there was a negative price to pay for it. That's a threat.

You have assumed a ton of malice that I haven't remotely advocated for.

Malice:

the wish to harm or upset other people

the intention to do something wrong and esp. to cause injury​

Maybe in Bizarro World, "if he doesn't waive his NTC, we'll buy him out or assign him to Springfield" isn't "the wish to harm or upset other people" or "the intention to do something wrong and esp. to cause injury" because you're going to take some tortured, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is approach. In the real world, saying "if you don't waive your NTC, I'm going to buy you out or assign you to Springfield" involves some element of malice, and I'm not about to go into some Clintonesque it's not really malice because it's not 'a ton of malice' rabbit hole.

What you wrote and are okay with is quite literally a conversation with the player that includes the threat of a buyout if he doesn't waive his NTC. You do realize that, right?

What do you know, there's that word again.

I realize I advocated, and am still advocating for, having a conversation about a player's future and doing that with class and respect. Which, one can do - and I've done before - without saying anything close to "if you don't waive your NTC, I'm going to _______."

You advocated for arrogance and disrespect by arguing Armstrong should pose a "do X or I'll do Y" option, and it's not clear at all you're backing off of that with all your waffling.

This is exactly the type of conversation I've been advocating for, except I would aslo be including the possibility that we might waive him and eventually assign him to the AHL before reaching a point where we buy him out.

"I would tell him if he doesn't waive his NTC, I'm buying him out or sending him to the AHL ... but I would do that respectfully." Wait, let me try this.

* "Because you didn't waive your NTC, I'm assigning you to Springfield ... but I mean that respectfully." No, that's not it.
* "I respectfully assign you to Springfield for not waiving your NTC." No, that's not it either.
* "I respect that you didn't waive your NTC, that's why I must respectfully assign you to Springfield." No, that's too much respect.
* "Normally I don't waive guys making $8.5 million and send them to Springfield after they don't waive their NTC, so understand when I'm doing it now it's a sign of how much I respect you." Ooh, that's not bad, but I can do better.
* "No, I'm not assigning you to Springfield because you didn't waive your NTC. I'm doing it because I'm respectful of how good you are and think you'd be more valuable down there than with us in St. Louis." That might work, gotta work on the delivery and the facial expressions to go with it. No one else in the room, either, they'll start laughing halfway through.
* "I recognize your respect for me through your unwillingness to waive your NTC, so I'd like to show you the same respect and assign you to Springfield." No, that could seem snarky. And, too much respect, unless maybe everyone wears Japanese ninja warrior outfits.
* "In respect of your contributions to the organization, including your unwillingness to waive your NTC for me, I'd like to reward you with an assignment to Springfield." Oh, I like that. If we can get a medal and certificate for that, great - but let's make sure we can get Brett Hull sober long enough to kiss Krug on both cheeks after the statement.

The fact that you have spouted off a bunch of hypothetical strawman scenarios of Army cursing at the player and making demands doesn't change the thing I advocated for.

Which is "go to Krug, tell him to waive his NTC or we're going to buy him out or send him to the AHL." Which, ... god, I wish there was a word in the dictionary that describes this. Well, maybe in 2024 Oxford or Webster's will come up with one.

I don't know what makes you think it's a "strawman" argument when I keep using your own words and your own statements in defense of those words to show what you say and what you mean. I really don't know how it's a strawman argument when every welyahbut gets followed with a statement reinforcing what you originally said, except you come up with mental gymnastics for why a threat isn't really a threat. If you don't like that, explain yourself better without using words or descriptions of the desired action that don't sound like, look like, would be interpreted by the average person as a threat.

If your "best" defense is "I'm not saying Armstrong should go in cursing" while continuing to use the word threat in describing what you think should happen when Armstrong goes to Krug this summer and describes what actions he may take if Krug doesn't do what Armstrong wants, ... well, maybe you need to work on that delivery and explanation so that it sounds more like a sincere offer and a mutually acceptable negotiation that will work for both parties, and less of a threat.

 

[Majorityof1]

There's the key word. It's still a threat. From the Cambridge Dictionary:

a suggestion that something unpleasant or violent will happen, especially if a particular action or order is not followed​

​

to be in a situation where people are threatening you or something else with something bad or unpleasant​

​

a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, esp. if the person does not do something in particular​

​

the possibility that something unwanted will happen, or a person or thing that is likely to cause something unwanted to happen​

Among the things needed to not be a threat: one has to have a choice that avoids the possibility of a negative outcome for themselves. There is no such choice here as you originally presented it, and as you're still presenting it now. Krug can give up his rights to decide where he wants to play by accepting a trade to somewhere he doesn't want to play, or he can get bought out / shipped to the AHL and the "choice" is reliant upon him giving up contractual rights granted to him. Neither outcome is "positive" for him unless one twists it into "well, he can still have an NHL job with this contract or he can have _______" which gets us back to the definition of the word threat.

You seem to think, based on your continuing arguments, that the "good of the team" is paramount to Krug's rights, and Krug can either do what's bad for him but "good for the team" or he can suffer consequences for it. Which, I don't care how many ways you want to try and spin that, still constitutes a threat. If you don't think that, then you need to explain yourself better without painting a picture of a "negotiation" in which one party has a desired goal and a second party must take an action(s) - even [especially] action(s) against its own interests - to help the first party achieve its goal, or the first party will take various actions against the second would not be done except for the second party's refusal to act against its own interests.

Cause ... I'm only an actuary, I'm not an English major or anything, but I've sat in a number of negotiations where someone made a threat to someone else; what you've been describing Armstrong should do sure sounds a hell of a lot like one of those times when someone made a threat, and I don't think I need an actuary table to help me understand what is a threat and what isn't.



This is exactly the bullshit I knew you'd pull.

Army should tell Krug if he doesn't waive his NTC, Army is going to buy him out or demote him to Springfield.

THAT'S NOT A THREAT, though. I'M NOT SAYING he needs to threaten him. YOU'RE the one saying cursing has to be involved, and it doesn't! I'm just saying he needs to ... say things in way that makes it really clear it's a 1-way conversation about what's going to happen and what Krug has to do to make that happen. And if he doesn't do it, Armstrong is going to do other stuff to him as a result that's not pleasant for Krug, that inflicts distress on Krug, that attempts to force Krug to do what Armstrong wants to avoid that distress, while making it feel like it's a 2-way conversation and Krug has a voluntary choice in what happens. Even though it's not voluntary at all and ultimately Krug has to do what Armstrong says or suffer the consequences. Which ... is a threat, but it's not a threat like anyone else defines it or understands that word to mean. This is different, because ... it's different .... because ... it's ... just ... different.

This equivocating, "it's not like a buyout or demotion is punitive to the player because it's really more for the benefit of the team" crap is like an employer going to an employee and saying "you either work weekends for the next 4 months with no extra pay, or you're getting demoted with a pay cut" and someone arguing "it wasn't a threat, they had a choice in the matter" and "that pay cut and demotion thing that happened when they didn't work weekends? That wasn't punitive, that's ... just how business goes sometimes" and ignoring that it was a purely either/or situation in which there was no scenario that the employee could refuse to work weekends and stay where they were; the "choice" was in which negative outcome they preferred to have.

They were sacrificing something either way "for the good of the company," their "choice" was in how they wanted to get screwed over and if they didn't do what the company wanted, there was a negative price to pay for it. That's a threat.


Malice:

the wish to harm or upset other people​

​

the intention to do something wrong and esp. to cause injury​

Maybe in Bizarro World, "if he doesn't waive his NTC, we'll buy him out or assign him to Springfield" isn't "the wish to harm or upset other people" or "the intention to do something wrong and esp. to cause injury" because you're going to take some tortured, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is approach. In the real world, saying "if you don't waive your NTC, I'm going to buy you out or assign you to Springfield" involves some element of malice, and I'm not about to go into some Clintonesque it's not really malice because it's not 'a ton of malice' rabbit hole.



What do you know, there's that word again.

I realize I advocated, and am still advocating for, having a conversation about a player's future and doing that with class and respect. Which, one can do - and I've done before - without saying anything close to "if you don't waive your NTC, I'm going to _______."

You advocated for arrogance and disrespect by arguing Armstrong should pose a "do X or I'll do Y" option, and it's not clear at all you're backing off of that with all your waffling.


"I would tell him if he doesn't waive his NTC, I'm buying him out or sending him to the AHL ... but I would do that respectfully." Wait, let me try this.

* "Because you didn't waive your NTC, I'm assigning you to Springfield ... but I mean that respectfully." No, that's not it.
* "I respectfully assign you to Springfield for not waiving your NTC." No, that's not it either.
* "I respect that you didn't waive your NTC, that's why I must respectfully assign you to Springfield." No, that's too much respect.
* "Normally I don't waive guys making $8.5 million and send them to Springfield after they don't waive their NTC, so understand when I'm doing it now it's a sign of how much I respect you." Ooh, that's not bad, but I can do better.
* "No, I'm not assigning you to Springfield because you didn't waive your NTC. I'm doing it because I'm respectful of how good you are and think you'd be more valuable down there than with us in St. Louis." That might work, gotta work on the delivery and the facial expressions to go with it. No one else in the room, either, they'll start laughing halfway through.
* "I recognize your respect for me through your unwillingness to waive your NTC, so I'd like to show you the same respect and assign you to Springfield." No, that could seem snarky. And, too much respect, unless maybe everyone wears Japanese ninja warrior outfits.
* "In respect of your contributions to the organization, including your unwillingness to waive your NTC for me, I'd like to reward you with an assignment to Springfield." Oh, I like that. If we can get a medal and certificate for that, great - but let's make sure we can get Brett Hull sober long enough to kiss Krug on both cheeks after the statement.



Which is "go to Krug, tell him to waive his NTC or we're going to buy him out or send him to the AHL." Which, ... god, I wish there was a word in the dictionary that describes this. Well, maybe in 2024 Oxford or Webster's will come up with one.

I don't know what makes you think it's a "strawman" argument when I keep using your own words and your own statements in defense of those words to show what you say and what you mean. I really don't know how it's a strawman argument when every welyahbut gets followed with a statement reinforcing what you originally said, except you come up with mental gymnastics for why a threat isn't really a threat. If you don't like that, explain yourself better without using words or descriptions of the desired action that don't sound like, look like, would be interpreted by the average person as a threat.

If your "best" defense is "I'm not saying Armstrong should go in cursing" while continuing to use the word threat in describing what you think should happen when Armstrong goes to Krug this summer and describes what actions he may take if Krug doesn't do what Armstrong wants, ... well, maybe you need to work on that delivery and explanation so that it sounds more like a sincere offer and a mutually acceptable negotiation that will work for both parties, and less of a threat.

Hey kids, want to learn how to lose an argument and then back out of what you said by arguing semantics instead using the dictionary, some bolded words and red font. Read the above....Oh sorry, I meant, want to learn how to do that BADLY. Yes, badly, desperately and obviously.

 

[Drubilly]

There's the key word. It's still a threat. From the Cambridge Dictionary:

a suggestion that something unpleasant or violent will happen, especially if a particular action or order is not followed​

​

to be in a situation where people are threatening you or something else with something bad or unpleasant​

​

a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, esp. if the person does not do something in particular​

​

the possibility that something unwanted will happen, or a person or thing that is likely to cause something unwanted to happen​

Among the things needed to not be a threat: one has to have a choice that avoids the possibility of a negative outcome for themselves. There is no such choice here as you originally presented it, and as you're still presenting it now. Krug can give up his rights to decide where he wants to play by accepting a trade to somewhere he doesn't want to play, or he can get bought out / shipped to the AHL and the "choice" is reliant upon him giving up contractual rights granted to him. Neither outcome is "positive" for him unless one twists it into "well, he can still have an NHL job with this contract or he can have _______" which gets us back to the definition of the word threat.

You seem to think, based on your continuing arguments, that the "good of the team" is paramount to Krug's rights, and Krug can either do what's bad for him but "good for the team" or he can suffer consequences for it. Which, I don't care how many ways you want to try and spin that, still constitutes a threat. If you don't think that, then you need to explain yourself better without painting a picture of a "negotiation" in which one party has a desired goal and a second party must take an action(s) - even [especially] action(s) against its own interests - to help the first party achieve its goal, or the first party will take various actions against the second would not be done except for the second party's refusal to act against its own interests.

Cause ... I'm only an actuary, I'm not an English major or anything, but I've sat in a number of negotiations where someone made a threat to someone else; what you've been describing Armstrong should do sure sounds a hell of a lot like one of those times when someone made a threat, and I don't think I need an actuary table to help me understand what is a threat and what isn't.



This is exactly the bullshit I knew you'd pull.

Army should tell Krug if he doesn't waive his NTC, Army is going to buy him out or demote him to Springfield.

THAT'S NOT A THREAT, though. I'M NOT SAYING he needs to threaten him. YOU'RE the one saying cursing has to be involved, and it doesn't! I'm just saying he needs to ... say things in way that makes it really clear it's a 1-way conversation about what's going to happen and what Krug has to do to make that happen. And if he doesn't do it, Armstrong is going to do other stuff to him as a result that's not pleasant for Krug, that inflicts distress on Krug, that attempts to force Krug to do what Armstrong wants to avoid that distress, while making it feel like it's a 2-way conversation and Krug has a voluntary choice in what happens. Even though it's not voluntary at all and ultimately Krug has to do what Armstrong says or suffer the consequences. Which ... is a threat, but it's not a threat like anyone else defines it or understands that word to mean. This is different, because ... it's different .... because ... it's ... just ... different.

This equivocating, "it's not like a buyout or demotion is punitive to the player because it's really more for the benefit of the team" crap is like an employer going to an employee and saying "you either work weekends for the next 4 months with no extra pay, or you're getting demoted with a pay cut" and someone arguing "it wasn't a threat, they had a choice in the matter" and "that pay cut and demotion thing that happened when they didn't work weekends? That wasn't punitive, that's ... just how business goes sometimes" and ignoring that it was a purely either/or situation in which there was no scenario that the employee could refuse to work weekends and stay where they were; the "choice" was in which negative outcome they preferred to have.

They were sacrificing something either way "for the good of the company," their "choice" was in how they wanted to get screwed over and if they didn't do what the company wanted, there was a negative price to pay for it. That's a threat.


Malice:

the wish to harm or upset other people​

​

the intention to do something wrong and esp. to cause injury​

Maybe in Bizarro World, "if he doesn't waive his NTC, we'll buy him out or assign him to Springfield" isn't "the wish to harm or upset other people" or "the intention to do something wrong and esp. to cause injury" because you're going to take some tortured, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is approach. In the real world, saying "if you don't waive your NTC, I'm going to buy you out or assign you to Springfield" involves some element of malice, and I'm not about to go into some Clintonesque it's not really malice because it's not 'a ton of malice' rabbit hole.



What do you know, there's that word again.

I realize I advocated, and am still advocating for, having a conversation about a player's future and doing that with class and respect. Which, one can do - and I've done before - without saying anything close to "if you don't waive your NTC, I'm going to _______."

You advocated for arrogance and disrespect by arguing Armstrong should pose a "do X or I'll do Y" option, and it's not clear at all you're backing off of that with all your waffling.


"I would tell him if he doesn't waive his NTC, I'm buying him out or sending him to the AHL ... but I would do that respectfully." Wait, let me try this.

* "Because you didn't waive your NTC, I'm assigning you to Springfield ... but I mean that respectfully." No, that's not it.
* "I respectfully assign you to Springfield for not waiving your NTC." No, that's not it either.
* "I respect that you didn't waive your NTC, that's why I must respectfully assign you to Springfield." No, that's too much respect.
* "Normally I don't waive guys making $8.5 million and send them to Springfield after they don't waive their NTC, so understand when I'm doing it now it's a sign of how much I respect you." Ooh, that's not bad, but I can do better.
* "No, I'm not assigning you to Springfield because you didn't waive your NTC. I'm doing it because I'm respectful of how good you are and think you'd be more valuable down there than with us in St. Louis." That might work, gotta work on the delivery and the facial expressions to go with it. No one else in the room, either, they'll start laughing halfway through.
* "I recognize your respect for me through your unwillingness to waive your NTC, so I'd like to show you the same respect and assign you to Springfield." No, that could seem snarky. And, too much respect, unless maybe everyone wears Japanese ninja warrior outfits.
* "In respect of your contributions to the organization, including your unwillingness to waive your NTC for me, I'd like to reward you with an assignment to Springfield." Oh, I like that. If we can get a medal and certificate for that, great - but let's make sure we can get Brett Hull sober long enough to kiss Krug on both cheeks after the statement.



Which is "go to Krug, tell him to waive his NTC or we're going to buy him out or send him to the AHL." Which, ... god, I wish there was a word in the dictionary that describes this. Well, maybe in 2024 Oxford or Webster's will come up with one.

I don't know what makes you think it's a "strawman" argument when I keep using your own words and your own statements in defense of those words to show what you say and what you mean. I really don't know how it's a strawman argument when every welyahbut gets followed with a statement reinforcing what you originally said, except you come up with mental gymnastics for why a threat isn't really a threat. If you don't like that, explain yourself better without using words or descriptions of the desired action that don't sound like, look like, would be interpreted by the average person as a threat.

If your "best" defense is "I'm not saying Armstrong should go in cursing" while continuing to use the word threat in describing what you think should happen when Armstrong goes to Krug this summer and describes what actions he may take if Krug doesn't do what Armstrong wants, ... well, maybe you need to work on that delivery and explanation so that it sounds more like a sincere offer and a mutually acceptable negotiation that will work for both parties, and less of a threat.

When you get a chance would you mind defining the word “threat”. I couldn’t quite hear you. Thanks love!!

 

[TheOrganist]

Over/Under last time Ted has gotten laid: 30 years

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Over/Under last time Ted has gotten laid: 30 years

I don't want to tell anyone here what to do, but ...

Spoiler

This is a really, really safe bet.

Spoiler

Take the under.

Spoiler

Way under.

 

[STL fan in MN]

This has gotten weird…

 

[TheOrganist]

I kid Ted. I enjoy his posts/rants. But he is a little….intense.

 

[TurgPavs]

I'd be worried he'd age like Vlasic. It's not like Krug where once they go down, you can at least say he can still run the PP. Once defensive guys can't handle the big defensive minutes, it can get rough.

I'd be fine overpaying per year to get a short term deal, but I don't want to give a 6-8 year deal and end up with another Krug/Faulk/Parayko situation, especially if we don't remove one of those guys from the roster.

I agree, 3-4 year deal. He is well below 700 GP in his career, and reminds be of JBo, who the Blues aquired with nearly 850 regular season games.

Pesce is just a solid positional defensemen who blocks a a large amount of shots. Ideally at 3 years, that gives you some time to build up the defensive prospect pool.

Pesce and Skjei seem like we are asking for the same problems we are or will have with Krug, Schenn and Faulk (probably even Parayko at some point). If we only had one or maybe two guys with those types of contracts, that would be one thing. Having three and likely four is just too much. I am forgetting how long Leddy and Saad contracts, so maybe their are included to lesser degrees too.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting you go after Pesce if you still have Krug and/or Faulk on the roster.
Nor am I suggesting anything more then a 3 or 4 year deal.

 

[simon IC]

I was going to close this, and put up an off-season trade proposals thread, but I realized we could still make the playoffs. At least mathematically.
Aw heck, who are we kidding.
Closed.