I can remember Tank being dogged for all kind of stuff. Not coming to North America right away, his 3-6-9 in the last 30 games of 2013 (after a pair of goals in his NHL debut and 1-2-3 the game after), his lack of defense, his lack of defense despite his offense, his lack of offense despite his defense, shooting too often, not shooting enough, not showing up for the playoffs, not scoring enough in the playoffs, and probably other stuff. You name it, he got criticized for it whether he was carrying this team on his back or not (which, according to some Blues fans, he never did).
By the time he was 24, Tarasenko had already been a 2nd team NHL All-Star (twice) and picked up votes for the Hart (twice). The next vote Kyrou gets for any major award will, like Brayden Schenn, be his first. [And if Kyrou gets one this year, it'll be for the Lady Byng.]
Kyrou is doing much worse defensively, for a half mil more, while having about the same goal-scoring output in an era where league scoring is about 0.8 goals per game higher. Tarasenko wasn't Selke caliber, but I don't recall him giving up the puck regularly like Kyrou does. I really don't remember him doing it, then dragging ass back on the backcheck like Kyrou does.
Is Kyrou's contract a problem? Depends. Are we OK with a guy making $8.125M per who's offensively strong, defensively crap and doesn't show any hint of caring about defense? I can remember in Hull's later years when despite putting up 50+ goals a season Blues fans bitched about his general refusal to play defense. Hell, Hull openly admitted he didn't play defense, he was paid to score goals - defense was someone else's job. If Kyrou plays the same way [no, don't start dreaming about him having multiple 50-goal seasons, much less 3 70-goal seasons and an 86-goal one], are we OK sinking that much money in him for the next 8 years?
