Blues Trade Proposals 2023-2024

[ezcreepin]

Tucker/Krug should be the 3rd pair, whichever is the best on their off-side will play the right. Leddy with Parayko and Scandella with Faulk. Continue to try and move Krug, and move Scandella at the deadline if we are out of the playoffs.

Hmmmmm, I'm not necessarily opposed to it but my concern is, is Tucker at the point right now where he can shelter Krug. I think most of the times he played he was paired with guys who are at least average at defending, but with Krug being who he is, can Tucker handle that challenge (especially on his off side)? Having them on the 3rd pair is going to mitigate that problem for sure, but Krug really should be playing something like 18 minutes given his contract and ability to push offense. Tucker also has a underrated offensive game to him too so maybe it actually works out well? That's gonna be a tough question but I'm definitely interested in seeing those two together.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Hmmmmm, I'm not necessarily opposed to it but my concern is, is Tucker at the point right now where he can shelter Krug. I think most of the times he played he was paired with guys who are at least average at defending, but with Krug being who he is, can Tucker handle that challenge (especially on his off side)? Having them on the 3rd pair is going to mitigate that problem for sure, but Krug really should be playing something like 18 minutes given his contract and ability to push offense. Tucker also has a underrated offensive game to him too so maybe it actually works out well? That's gonna be a tough question but I'm definitely interested in seeing those two together.

I think in general, this is how we'll see the pairs, but Krug will still play with Faulk at times when we need the offense, and we'll probably see Tucker with Faulk at times like we did last season.

One way or another, we'll know if Tucker is NHL quality or not. That's the benefit and curse of a team that isn't that good.

 

[PocketNines]

There is a very real difference between a NTC and a NMC.

I know that an NMC is a threat. Those will result in your organization falling out of competition because you're stuck with this rapidly declining player on a contract you disastrously misjudged and then not being able to make changes when you want to because they give the player the power to frustrate your actions.

And I know that Armstrong justifies handing NTCs to players up and down the lineup because NTCs won't bring such a situation about. We are blessed to have this smart man deciding things.

 

[ezcreepin]

I think in general, this is how we'll see the pairs, but Krug will still play with Faulk at times when we need the offense, and we'll probably see Tucker with Faulk at times like we did last season.

One way or another, we'll know if Tucker is NHL quality or not. That's the benefit and curse of a team that isn't that good.

Please for the love of god play the kid. He is more than good enough to be on this roster and he'll at least fight for his teammates (not literally but also yes literally).

One thing I am worried about is Scandella and Bortuzzo. I know that they'll probably play because of their style, but 100% they will be injured and likely at the same time. I think Rosen is fine as a 7th defenseman but I don't particularly want to see him, krug, and Perunovich in the lineup at the same time. I'd much rather if we're going to be bad to give a few players a cup of coffee and evaluate progression and how they handle the NHL game.

 

[Xerloris]

Sucks that Perunovich is sort of in limbo, but that's as much on him as it is on Krug's contract.

How is getting injured his fault? Also, his stunted development is on the lock downs for the virus from China. Still not his fault.

 

[bleedblue1223]

How is getting injured his fault? Also, his stunted development is on the lock downs for the virus from China. Still not his fault.

His last injury was because he put himself in a bad position, he admitted it himself. And when he was up before that, he was decent, but didn't demand a spot with his play.

 

[joe galiba]

His last injury was because he put himself in a bad position, he admitted it himself. And when he was up before that, he was decent, but didn't demand a spot with his play.

you mean as a young 23 old defenseman getting his first taste of the NHL in all of 19 games?
and his underlying numbers were solid, although in sheltered usage

 

[bleedblue1223]

you mean as a young 23 old defenseman getting his first taste of the NHL in all of 19 games?
and his underlying numbers were solid, although in sheltered usage

That's fine, he wasn't bad, he earned more time, but I wouldn't say his play was to the level that he has to be in the top 6, even if he didn't have injury issues. And those injuries issues are still partially his fault, especially his most recent one.

 

[Brian39]

You could just as easily say that we were not exactly wanting to put him into a situation to fail. Our team was terrible bad last year, the defense even more so. Coming off of a long term injury that needed surgery getting thrown into the NHL in a terrible position is not good for someone you hope can develop. AHL is where he should have been because let's not forget that he did miss out on tons of development time because of covid, that does not necessarily mean he's falling behind his pears but rather than some Dmen take a long time to mature and even more so when they miss so much time because of a pandemic.

While technically true, this response seems a tad disingenuous to me. He was recovering from major shoulder surgery. Was he actually a legit option to be called up to the Blues the last 1/4 of the season?

I recall Perunovich wasn’t great his first handful of games in Springfield, which would make sense as he’d very likely be rusty. He then picked it up and finished with 20 pts in those 22 games. My take on the situation was that he simply needed to play as much as he could and that was best achieved in Springfield. The Blues sucked, Scandella was already returning (and they had to make room to take him off of LTIR), Tucker had emerged…did they really need or have the roster space or cap room to add Perunovich? I don’t recall the specifics of their daily cap situation at the time but I’d think they would’ve had to really force it to get Perunovich on the roster and there was no need as what he really needed was to play as much as he could and he was already doing that in Springfield.

I could see the benefit in trading Peru if they could actually get someone solid for him but I’d prefer to keep him and continue to try to trade Krug. Peru is still waiver exempt too so I’m not just looking to give him away with no reason forcing the issue as of now. I still believe in his talent - he just needs to stay healthy.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a D is moved yet this summer or sometime during camp but I’d prefer it be one of the older guys. Peru is young and still has some potential. We should know more by the end of Sept on how he stacks up to the others and if he’d likely be able to land a full time NHL job or not.

I'm not advocating for a trade of Perunovich and I'm not saying that his development wasn't best served in the AHL. But I absolutely think he was a legit option to be called up in the last 1/4 of the season when the games were as low-stakes as NHL games get. By that point, we were playing out the string of a clear non-playoffs season and were giving young guys NHL looks.

We played 10 total D men in March and April last year: Faulk, Parayko, Krug, Leddy, Scandella, Bortz, Tucker, Rosen, Kessel, and Samorukov.

Samorukov got two games in April. So did Kessel (two separate games). Kessel got 15:07 and 15:02 his games while Samurokov got 15:48 and 13:54 in his games. That's 4 games where the team elected to give a D prospect legit 3rd pair minutes in a throwaway game and chose guys over Perunovich to do it. These were clear 'seeing what we have' decisions and Parayko/Leddy/Faulk combined for 11:43 of powerplay time in these 4 games. There was clear opportunity here to see how Perunovich looked in a 3rd pair 2nd PPQB role and the team elected to look at other guys.

Krug didn't play on 3/23 in Detroit because he stayed in St. Louis for the birth of a child. This was an opportunity to call up Perunovich and plug him directly into the 3rd pair, 1st PPQB role to see how he looked. The team elected to plug Rosen into the game instead. Faulk and Leddy played the bulk of the PP minutes that night, but Bortz, Parayko, and Rosen each got 30-40 seconds on the PP as well. This was about 6 weeks after his return from injury.

Again, I'm not advocating that we trade Perunovich, but it was not simply injury that kept him from playing in the NHL last year. In the final few weeks of the season he was healthy and productive in the AHL while 10 other D men in the organization got NHL games. 3 of them were shuttled back and forth between the NHL and AHL roster to get those games. Perunovich was on a league minimum contract and absolutely could have been one of those guys for any of the 10 total games that went to Tucker, Kessel, or Samorukov in March and April. He was absolutely a legit option to get some of those opportunities and the team elected to go with multiple other prospects. That is not nothing.

 

[Brian39]

Hmmmmm, I'm not necessarily opposed to it but my concern is, is Tucker at the point right now where he can shelter Krug. I think most of the times he played he was paired with guys who are at least average at defending, but with Krug being who he is, can Tucker handle that challenge (especially on his off side)? Having them on the 3rd pair is going to mitigate that problem for sure, but Krug really should be playing something like 18 minutes given his contract and ability to push offense. Tucker also has a underrated offensive game to him too so maybe it actually works out well? That's gonna be a tough question but I'm definitely interested in seeing those two together.

I completely agree with the concern about asking Tucker to try and shelter Krug.

But I completely disagree with the bolded. Krug wasn't remotely effective at handling 18:35 a night last year. He had some of the most sheltered minutes in the NHL and got absolutely caved in.

More importantly. he's not particularly good at pushing offense at even strength. In his 3 years as a Blue, his 60 even strength points is 10 behind Parayko (in 13 fewer games played) and 38 behind Faulk. He is behind both in even strength points per game (.45 and .37 for Faulk/Parayko vs .34 for Krug). Rosen has a higher even strength point per game total than Krug (.37 vs .34) and Leddy is barely trailing Krug (.31) despite playing an extreme shutdown role while Krug gets extreme offensive deployment.

Krug piles up points on the PP where he is incredibly effective. His ability to drive offense away from the PP is not particularly great. He was 5th on our blueline in even strength points and points per game last year. Given the amount of sheltering he required and the defensive results, his offense doesn't merit 15 minutes a night at even strength.

If we can build two competent top 4 pairs where our top two LHD soak up 35-40 even strength minutes a night, we should be perfectly content with Krug on the bottom pair playing 10-13 even strength minutes per night and then logging big PP minutes. That puts him in better position to look way better offf the puck even if it costs him 5 or so points.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I'm not knocking Perunovich either. I'm just saying part of the reason he's in the position that he's in, is on him, and part of it is Krug's contract. If Krug was magically gone, would we really be confident in Perunovich playing 70+ games, scoring 40+ points, and being the QB on a quality PP unit?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I'm not advocating for a trade of Perunovich and I'm not saying that his development wasn't best served in the AHL. But I absolutely think he was a legit option to be called up in the last 1/4 of the season when the games were as low-stakes as NHL games get. By that point, we were playing out the string of a clear non-playoffs season and were giving young guys NHL looks.

We played 10 total D men in March and April last year: Faulk, Parayko, Krug, Leddy, Scandella, Bortz, Tucker, Rosen, Kessel, and Samorukov.

Samorukov got two games in April. So did Kessel (two separate games). Kessel got 15:07 and 15:02 his games while Samurokov got 15:48 and 13:54 in his games. That's 4 games where the team elected to give a D prospect legit 3rd pair minutes in a throwaway game and chose guys over Perunovich to do it. These were clear 'seeing what we have' decisions and Parayko/Leddy/Faulk combined for 11:43 of powerplay time in these 4 games. There was clear opportunity here to see how Perunovich looked in a 3rd pair 2nd PPQB role and the team elected to look at other guys.

Krug didn't play on 3/23 in Detroit because he stayed in St. Louis for the birth of a child. This was an opportunity to call up Perunovich and plug him directly into the 3rd pair, 1st PPQB role to see how he looked. The team elected to plug Rosen into the game instead. Faulk and Leddy played the bulk of the PP minutes that night, but Bortz, Parayko, and Rosen each got 30-40 seconds on the PP as well. This was about 6 weeks after his return from injury.

Again, I'm not advocating that we trade Perunovich, but it was not simply injury that kept him from playing in the NHL last year. In the final few weeks of the season he was healthy and productive in the AHL while 10 other D men in the organization got NHL games. 3 of them were shuttled back and forth between the NHL and AHL roster to get those games. Perunovich was on a league minimum contract and absolutely could have been one of those guys for any of the 10 total games that went to Tucker, Kessel, or Samorukov in March and April. He was absolutely a legit option to get some of those opportunities and the team elected to go with multiple other prospects. That is not nothing.

I think Tucker has passed him in pecking order. Kessel I think they wanted to get taste of nhl to help him and club see where he was at. Samo probably too. So if you prioritized them he was squeezed. at that point he was only eligible for callup if we didn’t have enough healthy bodies. which is I think a recognition that he is more an option if we need a guy than a prospect we are expecting big things from at this point.

 

[joe galiba]

I'm not advocating for a trade of Perunovich and I'm not saying that his development wasn't best served in the AHL. But I absolutely think he was a legit option to be called up in the last 1/4 of the season when the games were as low-stakes as NHL games get. By that point, we were playing out the string of a clear non-playoffs season and were giving young guys NHL looks.

We played 10 total D men in March and April last year: Faulk, Parayko, Krug, Leddy, Scandella, Bortz, Tucker, Rosen, Kessel, and Samorukov.

Samorukov got two games in April. So did Kessel (two separate games). Kessel got 15:07 and 15:02 his games while Samurokov got 15:48 and 13:54 in his games. That's 4 games where the team elected to give a D prospect legit 3rd pair minutes in a throwaway game and chose guys over Perunovich to do it. These were clear 'seeing what we have' decisions and Parayko/Leddy/Faulk combined for 11:43 of powerplay time in these 4 games. There was clear opportunity here to see how Perunovich looked in a 3rd pair 2nd PPQB role and the team elected to look at other guys.

Krug didn't play on 3/23 in Detroit because he stayed in St. Louis for the birth of a child. This was an opportunity to call up Perunovich and plug him directly into the 3rd pair, 1st PPQB role to see how he looked. The team elected to plug Rosen into the game instead. Faulk and Leddy played the bulk of the PP minutes that night, but Bortz, Parayko, and Rosen each got 30-40 seconds on the PP as well. This was about 6 weeks after his return from injury.

Again, I'm not advocating that we trade Perunovich, but it was not simply injury that kept him from playing in the NHL last year. In the final few weeks of the season he was healthy and productive in the AHL while 10 other D men in the organization got NHL games. 3 of them were shuttled back and forth between the NHL and AHL roster to get those games. Perunovich was on a league minimum contract and absolutely could have been one of those guys for any of the 10 total games that went to Tucker, Kessel, or Samorukov in March and April. He was absolutely a legit option to get some of those opportunities and the team elected to go with multiple other prospects. That is not nothing.

I think the fact that he wasn't bounced up and down, while given low minutes means exactly opposite of what you are thinking
he played a grand total of 44 games over three years at the point he came back from injury
so the choice was to play a little bit on a team going nowhere and playing for nothing; or playing major minutes on a team working towards the playoffs and then in the playoffs as essentially THE guy on defense

releasing Samorukov shows how little the Blues thought of him and how much the cup of tea minutes really meant and makes me wonder if they view Kessel similarly

edit- 43 games

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

dunno how he would feel if we sent him to San Antonio when all the rest of our minor leaguers are in Springfield. would that be a positive or negative that he can wander river walk with his family instead of having to practice?

 

[Brian39]

you mean as a young 23 old defenseman getting his first taste of the NHL in all of 19 games?
and his underlying numbers were solid, although in sheltered usage

'Don't reach out for the boards when you get hit" was drilled into my head well before I hit the age where checking was allowed. And I was a goalie who generally was doing other stuff during the 'laern how to check and be checked' drills. This was an absolutely unacceptable level of preparation for contact from a professional hockey player:



He was hit by a 21 year old AHL player on a routine, fairly slow-moving forecheck in a preseason game. Instead of skating hard to the puck to get there way before the forechecker, he stopped moving his feet the top of the circle to pick up a puck in the corner below the circle and just in front of the goal line. He then fully ignored the forechecker and played the puck while doing nothing to brace for the incoming contact until the forechecker was directly on top of him.

That is a play that should be made while avoiding dangerous contact 100% of the time by any D man playing at the pro level. That forechecker is coming at equivalent speed in the AHL and oftentimes in the ECHL as well. Retrieving a soft dump in the corner while either avoiding contact entirely or properly bracing for contact from a lone forechecker is a routine play.

A lack of NHL experience cannot excuse his ridiculously poor play on that puck. That was a teenager in a teenager's league type of mistake.

 

[joe galiba]

'Don't reach out for the boards when you get hit" was drilled into my head well before I hit the age where checking was allowed. And I was a goalie who generally was doing other stuff during the 'laern how to check and be checked' drills. This was an absolutely unacceptable level of preparation for contact from a professional hockey player:



He was hit by a 21 year old AHL player on a routine, fairly slow-moving forecheck in a preseason game. Instead of skating hard to the puck to get there way before the forechecker, he stopped moving his feet the top of the circle to pick up a puck in the corner below the circle and just in front of the goal line. He then fully ignored the forechecker and played the puck while doing nothing to brace for the incoming contact until the forechecker was directly on top of him.

That is a play that should be made while avoiding dangerous contact 100% of the time by any D man playing at the pro level. That forechecker is coming at equivalent speed in the AHL and oftentimes in the ECHL as well. Retrieving a soft dump in the corner while either avoiding contact entirely or properly bracing for contact from a lone forechecker is a routine play.

A lack of NHL experience cannot excuse his ridiculously poor play on that puck. That was a teenager in a teenager's league type of mistake.

dumb way to get hurt, but players sometimes get hurt doing something stupid on routine plays, it happens

but regardless, I was addressing his play not his injury

 

[Mike Liut]

I know that an NMC is a threat. Those will result in your organization falling out of competition because you're stuck with this rapidly declining player on a contract you disastrously misjudged and then not being able to make changes when you want to because they give the player the power to frustrate your actions.

And I know that Armstrong justifies handing NTCs to players up and down the lineup because NTCs won't bring such a situation about. We are blessed to have this smart man deciding things.

Not sure you realize it, but even though I love stl, it’s not the most desirable place in the US to live for young multi millionaire athletes. We have to over pay at times to lure and retain players and also entice them with NTC. It’s just how it is.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I'm not advocating for a trade of Perunovich and I'm not saying that his development wasn't best served in the AHL. But I absolutely think he was a legit option to be called up in the last 1/4 of the season when the games were as low-stakes as NHL games get. By that point, we were playing out the string of a clear non-playoffs season and were giving young guys NHL looks.

We played 10 total D men in March and April last year: Faulk, Parayko, Krug, Leddy, Scandella, Bortz, Tucker, Rosen, Kessel, and Samorukov.

Samorukov got two games in April. So did Kessel (two separate games). Kessel got 15:07 and 15:02 his games while Samurokov got 15:48 and 13:54 in his games. That's 4 games where the team elected to give a D prospect legit 3rd pair minutes in a throwaway game and chose guys over Perunovich to do it. These were clear 'seeing what we have' decisions and Parayko/Leddy/Faulk combined for 11:43 of powerplay time in these 4 games. There was clear opportunity here to see how Perunovich looked in a 3rd pair 2nd PPQB role and the team elected to look at other guys.

Krug didn't play on 3/23 in Detroit because he stayed in St. Louis for the birth of a child. This was an opportunity to call up Perunovich and plug him directly into the 3rd pair, 1st PPQB role to see how he looked. The team elected to plug Rosen into the game instead. Faulk and Leddy played the bulk of the PP minutes that night, but Bortz, Parayko, and Rosen each got 30-40 seconds on the PP as well. This was about 6 weeks after his return from injury.

Again, I'm not advocating that we trade Perunovich, but it was not simply injury that kept him from playing in the NHL last year. In the final few weeks of the season he was healthy and productive in the AHL while 10 other D men in the organization got NHL games. 3 of them were shuttled back and forth between the NHL and AHL roster to get those games. Perunovich was on a league minimum contract and absolutely could have been one of those guys for any of the 10 total games that went to Tucker, Kessel, or Samorukov in March and April. He was absolutely a legit option to get some of those opportunities and the team elected to go with multiple other prospects. That is not nothing.

Yes, Perunovich was a legit option to be called up late in the season but I still think you’re ignoring the larger picture. The Blues more or less know what they have in Peru. They hadn’t seen either Kessel or Samorukov in a game yet and likely wanted to see that going into the offseason. Then there’s also politics (trying to reward guys for a season well done), Perunovich’s recovery etc.

In the end though, it comes down to each of our interpretations of their intentions. Your interpretation seems to be that simply thought Kessel and Samorukov would give them a better chance of winning so they were called up over Peru. My interpretation is that it was more strategic in them wanting to see those guys in the NHL and wanted Peru to play as many minutes as possible and be a leader that’d help take the T-birds on another deep playoff run (that obviously didn’t go to plan). Neither of us were in the room when they decided who to call up and why so I’m not going to argue it further. We’re each simply guessing/interpreting the situation differently.

I will say though that of these d-men they had to make a decision on, they gave one a one-way deal (Perunovich) and didn’t even give the other a QO (Samorukov). I think that pretty clearly demonstrates which they valued more regardless of who got called up to the Blues for a couple of meaningless games in April.

 

[ezcreepin]

I completely agree with the concern about asking Tucker to try and shelter Krug.

But I completely disagree with the bolded. Krug wasn't remotely effective at handling 18:35 a night last year. He had some of the most sheltered minutes in the NHL and got absolutely caved in.

More importantly. he's not particularly good at pushing offense at even strength. In his 3 years as a Blue, his 60 even strength points is 10 behind Parayko (in 13 fewer games played) and 38 behind Faulk. He is behind both in even strength points per game (.45 and .37 for Faulk/Parayko vs .34 for Krug). Rosen has a higher even strength point per game total than Krug (.37 vs .34) and Leddy is barely trailing Krug (.31) despite playing an extreme shutdown role while Krug gets extreme offensive deployment.

Krug piles up points on the PP where he is incredibly effective. His ability to drive offense away from the PP is not particularly great. He was 5th on our blueline in even strength points and points per game. Given the amount of sheltering he required and the defensive results, his offense doesn't merit 15 minutes a night at even strength.

If we can build two competent top 4 pairs where our top two LHD soak up 35-40 even strength minutes a night, we should be perfectly content with Krug on the bottom pair playing 10-13 even strength minutes per night and then logging big PP minutes. That puts him in better position to look way better offf the puck even if it costs him 5 or so points.

To be clear, I am not saying he handled it well at all, but as you'll see in the rest of my messag, to quote Shaq "I apologize, I was not familiar with your game" lmao.

Damn, I'm at work so I'm not like investigating these numbers but I thought for sure that Krug would at least be productive at even strength. I do know he gets something like at least 20 points on the powerplay so that would make sense that he's poor at driving the play 5 on 5. It's clear now that he was sheltered by a great defense in Boston, but coming to St Louis (who has a fine defense) is putting a spotlight on his play and showing those weaknesses much more. It sucks having to pay 6.5 mil to a 3rd pair pp quarterback who should be playing less minutes but what can you do now. Like you said the goal should be to actually shelter this dude with like 11-13 minutes a night with lots of pp time, or you can get lucky and offload the contract. I'm crossing my fingers for Perunovich because he would absolutely fill a need with a Krug departure, but that is the most logical solution for this problem.

 

[Brian39]

I think the fact that he wasn't bounced up and down, while given low minutes means exactly opposite of what you are thinking
he played a grand total of 44 games over three years at the point he came back from injury
so the choice was to play a little bit on a team going nowhere and playing for nothing; or playing major minutes on a team working towards the playoffs and then in the playoffs as essentially THE guy on defense

releasing Samorukov shows how little the Blues thought of him and how much the cup of tea minutes really meant and makes me wonder if they view Kessel similarly

edit- 43 games

It wasn't a question of a couple NHL games vs a bunch of AHL games. It wasn't a question of having him sit in an NHL press box vs playing in the AHL. We're talking about a 3-4 day call up to play 2 NHL games while missing 1 or 2 AHL games. There were a couple holes in the Springfield schedule where we could have gotten him up for an NHL game and then sent him back down without missing an AHL game.

He still very much could have been the guy in the AHL while getting a look on our 3rd pair and PP for an NHL game or two if the team wanted to evaluate him as an option for 2023/24.

I think he very much has a chance to earn an NHL job in camp this year and I'd much rather move Krug than moving Perunovich. I think Perunovich's trade value is basically non-existent at this point, so I have no desire to move him. I don't think he has what it takes to be an everyday NHL player, but there is no incentive to ship him out of the organization until he fully proves that. Unless he can be a complimentary piece in a bigger deal, trading him makes no sense to me.

I also think that he has had some bad luck along the way. But my overall point is that injury and bad luck is not the only reason he was outside the NHL all season last year. I think he is (at best) 9th in our organizational depth chart at D right now.

 

[Reality Czech]

Not sure you realize it, but even though I love stl, it’s not the most desirable place in the US to live for young multi millionaire athletes. We have to over pay at times to lure and retain players and also entice them with NTC. It’s just how it is.

Great point. People complain about the NTCs but I doubt Armstrong would give them out unless it was necessary to close the deal. So without the NTCs it's possible if not likely that these players would have signed for another team that offered the NTC. I'm sure people would have rather not signed Krug, but hindsight is 20/20. The Blues needed an LHD and someone who could qb the power play, so signing Krug made a lot of sense at the time.

There's no guarantee that whoever would replace Krug or whoever would be much better. You've gotta pick guys who are actually open to being long term, which no doubt rules out some players trust have changed teams in recent years. In retrospect keeping Dunn instead of Krug would have been better, but Dunn isn't much better defensively. And I would be nervous to hand out the contract he'll likely command as I don't see him as a true all situations top pair D-man either.

 

[Brian39]

Yes, Perunovich was a legit option to be called up late in the season but I still think you’re ignoring the larger picture. The Blues more or less know what they have in Peru. They hadn’t seen either Kessel or Samorukov in a game yet and likely wanted to see that going into the offseason. Then there’s also politics (trying to reward guys for a season well done), Perunovich’s recovery etc.

In the end though, it comes down to each of our interpretations of their intentions. Your interpretation seems to be that simply thought Kessel and Samorukov would give them a better chance of winning so they were called up over Peru. My interpretation is that it was more strategic in them wanting to see those guys in the NHL and wanted Peru to play as many minutes as possible and be a leader that’d help take the T-birds on another deep playoff run (that obviously didn’t go to plan). Neither of us were in the room when they decided who to call up and why so I’m not going to argue it further. We’re each simply guessing/interpreting the situation differently.

I will say though that of these d-men they had to make a decision on, they gave one a one-way deal (Perunovich) and didn’t even give the other a QO (Samorukov). I think that pretty clearly demonstrates which they valued more regardless of who got called up to the Blues for a couple of meaningless games in April.

I agree with most of this. And again, I have no interest in moving him and would much prefer to give him an opportunity to develop into an NHLer here. But to the bolded: If we more or less know what we have in Peru, then that knowledge is that his PP ability isn't worth putting him into the lineup as the #6 D man unless we have no other options.

We dressed 7 D men for all 7 playoff games he played in during 2021/22 and when we went back to 6 D for games 5 and 6 vs Colorado he was the guy who got scratched. All of these games came with Krug out of the lineup, so PP ability was a tangible need. Earlier in the season, he wasn't able to make the NHL lineup until injuries hit. He split time between the AHL and NHL prior to his January injury.

Berube flat out didn't trust him as a top 6 D man in 2021/22 unless injuries forced him into that position. And a Krug injury in the playoffs that opened up an opportunity for Perunovich still saw the coach dress a 7th D to limit his even strength usage and eventually wound up scratching him. If the organization feels that they know what they have in him, that opinion is that he isn't a full time NHL player.

He for sure has time to change that opinion, but I think we are a ways off from assuming that he is getting penciled in for full time 3rd pair and top PP unit usage if Krug is suddenly off the roster. He didn't accomplish that in the past and everyone who dressed over him is still in the organization. He needs to do more than simply avoid injury to replace Krug in a scenario where we trade Krug and don't bring in another NHL D man.

 

[Brian39]

Great point. People complain about the NTCs but I doubt Armstrong would give them out unless it was necessary to close the deal. So without the NTCs it's possible if not likely that these players would have signed for another team that offered the NTC. I'm sure people would have rather not signed Krug, but hindsight is 20/20. The Blues needed an LHD and someone who could qb the power play, so signing Krug made a lot of sense at the time.

There's no guarantee that whoever would replace Krug or whoever would be much better. You've gotta pick guys who are actually open to being long term, which no doubt rules out some players trust have changed teams in recent years. In retrospect keeping Dunn instead of Krug would have been better, but Dunn isn't much better defensively. And I would be nervous to hand out the contract he'll likely command as I don't see him as a true all situations top pair D-man either.

I think people in general underestimate how common trade protection is. You are only eligible to receive trade/move protection for years where you had UFA eligibility, which means any player under 27 can't have one (unless they have accrued 7 years of NHL experience).

Let's look at guys aged 27+ who got 1 way deals making $1M or more. That filters out all the young guys ineligible for trade protection and the cheap journeymen who you get to fill in the very edges of your lineup. There are 363 NHL players aged 27 and older who make $1M+ on a 1 way deal for 2023/24. 222 of them have some form of trade protection.

That's 60%. And again, we're setting the bar at $1M veterans, which is oging to include a lot of bottom-of-the-lineup guys. Set the bar at $2M and you are at 216 of 308 guys. That's 70%. Setting the bar at $3M gets you 77% (201 of 261).

I'm not going to dig into the strength of these clauses, because Capfriendly doesn't have a great tool for that and I don't want to spend more than 10 minutes on this post. But I think it is pretty clear that trade protection is the cost of doing business with any veteran worth signing.

We have 10 total guys with trade protection, which is a bit more than the league average (7.5). We have 7 guys with full NTCs, which is much more than the league average for trade protection (3.28). However, we also have zero guys with full NMCs, which is below the league average of 2.25. We are a bit on the high end of robust trade protection, but we are also on the high end of veteran players at the top of our lineup. I don't think the overall picture is that Army gives out trade protection more than other GMs. He built a veteran group and we can have the debates about whether we should or shouldn't have targeted/signed this guy or that guy. But I think the trade protection given out to the guys we targeted/signed is right in line with the marketplace.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I agree with most of this. And again, I have no interest in moving him and would much prefer to give him an opportunity to develop into an NHLer here. But to the bolded: If we more or less know what we have in Peru, then that knowledge is that his PP ability isn't worth putting him into the lineup as the #6 D man unless we have no other options.

We dressed 7 D men for all 7 playoff games he played in during 2021/22 and when we went back to 6 D for games 5 and 6 vs Colorado he was the guy who got scratched. All of these games came with Krug out of the lineup, so PP ability was a tangible need. Earlier in the season, he wasn't able to make the NHL lineup until injuries hit. He split time between the AHL and NHL prior to his January injury.

Berube flat out didn't trust him as a top 6 D man in 2021/22 unless injuries forced him into that position. And a Krug injury in the playoffs that opened up an opportunity for Perunovich still saw the coach dress a 7th D to limit his even strength usage and eventually wound up scratching him. If the organization feels that they know what they have in him, that opinion is that he isn't a full time NHL player.

He for sure has time to change that opinion, but I think we are a ways off from assuming that he is getting penciled in for full time 3rd pair and top PP unit usage if Krug is suddenly off the roster. He didn't accomplish that in the past and everyone who dressed over him is still in the organization. He needs to do more than simply avoid injury to replace Krug in a scenario where we trade Krug and don't bring in another NHL D man.

I think we’re mostly on the same page here actually. I would agree he needs to prove he can be an everyday NHLer and hasn’t done that yet. But I think he can. And I’d guess the Blues think the same or they wouldn’t have offered him another one-way deal. If they truly had made the decision that they don’t think he could ever get to that level, I’d think they would’ve just let him go or thrown him into some trade. To me anyway, it’s clear the Blues still value him.

Maybe I’m making too many excuses for him but to me, it makes sense he didn’t establish himself those two times. His first stint in the NHL, he was a literal rookie. It’s not remotely uncommon for a guy playing his first season of pro hockey to not be fully NHL ready yet. Especially at defense. But he was playing regularly until his wrist got injured and needed surgery.

Then he’s thrown back into the lineup in the middle of the playoffs, again during his rookie season. Not a preseason game, not an October game where teams and players are still getting a feel for things, the NHL playoffs. So I’m not remotely surprised they’d elect to go with some insurance to shelter a rookie D that’d just missed months and was thrown in cold. Almost any player would need some time to get back up to speed after that sort of layoff, particularly a rookie, but the Blues didn’t have the luxury of giving him that time as it was do or die in the playoffs vs Minnesota and then Colorado…but they also needed his PP QB ability so they provided themselves some insurance and dressed 7 D. Peru was put in a tough spot there and while he absolutely made some defensive miscues in the 7 playoff games he got into, I think he did pretty darn well given the circumstances.

So yes, he absolutely still needs to prove he can be an everyday NHL d-man, but I can see valid reasons as to why he hasn’t done that yet given the circumstances. And via natural growth and development, I think he can get there. We’ll just have to wait and see. Training camp will be huge for him.

 

[Brian39]

I want to see Karlsson go back to Ottawa, so I've been kicking around the framework of a 3 team deal to get it done.

To STL: Chabot
To Ottawa: Karlsson w/ $3.5M retained
To San Jose: Kyrou

We get 5 years of a top pair LHD while remaining cap neutral. Ottawa replaces 5 years of Chabot with 4 years of a franchise icon while remaining cap neutral and balancing their LHD/RHD in the top 4. San Jose gets 8 year of Kyrou while only adding $125k to their overall cap balance sheet for the 4 years they are retaining on Karlsson.

I think Ottawa would probably need San Jose to either retain more or take Joseph's contract in order to address some other needs. While Karlsson is the better player now, I don't think 4 more years of him at $8M is as valuable as 5 more years of Chabot at $8M.

To STL: Chabot
To Ottawa Karlsson w/ $3M retained
To San Jose: Kyrou and Joseph

What else needs to happen for this to make sense for all 3 teams?