Confirmed with Link: Torey Krug (7 years @ $6.5m)

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Celtic Note

Living the dream
Dec 22, 2006
17,253
6,203
Which seems pretty reasonable to me, but yet a lot of people here seem to be pretty ok with it all of a sudden.

Put the signing in a vacuum by ignoring Pietrangelo altogether for a moment, and I feel like there should be a lot more discussion about whether this is a good contract to be giving out, whether Krug was a good player to target, how this alters the dynamic of the team/defense, and whether the team is positioned to be a legitimate contender as it currently stands.

To me, this is far from a no-brainer signing as it stands alone.
I think there is a group that is trying to convince themselves that the signing allows to continue to be a contender, a group underrating Petro, a group pissed with how he has handled things, a group that really likes Krug, and a group that doesn’t value defense in general. Some people will fall in multiple groups.

Honestly, I get it. I don’t want the ride to be over. I am personally am holding out hope we still resign him and trade Faulk somehow. I do think we could sign Petro. But, those hopes are very minimal. I have historically not the biggest fan of Army, because he creates a lot of his own problems. He did have a great year with the ROR trade, so my glimmer of hope is teathered to his prior rare magic.

I could also see another unforeseen move. Landing a guy like Hall could change some things and move the needle closer to contender than pretender. As could picking up an actual two-way defender. Again, breath not held, but I am willing to wait to see what happens before I pass full judgement.
 

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
Now remove the vacuum and assume the worst in the Pietrangelo talks. Who do you sign if he walks? Are Barrie, Brodie, Shattenkirk, and Hamonic better than Krug? How do they fit within the Blues d-corps? Barrie is pretty bad in his own end, but good for 40-50 points a year, Brodie I believe would've signed in Toronto before anywhere else, Shattenkirk is a no for me, Hamonic maybe? But he's a righty and we already have 2 adequate righties on the team. I just think that there has to be something we don't know about for Army to go and sign a guy like Krug before waiting to see what Pietranglo would be offered in Vegas and elsewhere. And I find it surprising that you, of all people, feel this way about the situation.
There is no one in the rest of the UFA defenseman class besides Pietrangelo that seems worth going out of our way to sign, Krug included. You're basically going to have to explore the trade market, which might actually produce some fruit worth having sometime in the near future if you have the ability to take on significant cap. With Krug's signing, the Blues just lost a lot of their potential leverage in that area.

Losing Pietrangelo pretty much drives a nail in the Blues chances of being a legitimate contender this year barring some miracle or other. Adding Krug as a replacement doesn't really change that. I'll be shocked if a top 4 of Parayko/Krug/Faulk/Scandella comes even close to being good enough to threaten for a Cup, so I think you still need that miracle even after adding Krug. There's just one less potential avenue for making that miracle a reality.

I'm honestly surprised that so many people are ok with this, or even happy about it. I think if we were talking more about the specifics of Krug's deal and how he fits on the team, the reception might be more muted...but right now the mindset seems to be squarely on the "something is better than nothing" train of thought. I just don't see it that way at all.
 

DoubleK81

It's always something with these pricks.
Sep 10, 2010
2,470
2,747
PETRO SUCKS

Attachments

  • lf.jpg
    lf.jpg
    110.4 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: Spektre

ezcreepin

Registered User
Dec 5, 2016
2,693
2,443
There is no one in the rest of the UFA defenseman class besides Pietrangelo that seems worth going out of our way to sign, Krug included. You're basically going to have to explore the trade market, which might actually produce some fruit worth having sometime in the near future if you have the ability to take on significant cap. With Krug's signing, the Blues just lost a lot of their potential leverage in that area.

Losing Pietrangelo pretty much drives a nail in the Blues chances of being a legitimate contender this year barring some miracle or other. Adding Krug as a replacement doesn't really change that. I'll be shocked if a top 4 of Parayko/Krug/Faulk/Scandella comes even close to being good enough to threaten for a Cup, so I think you still need that miracle even after adding Krug. There's just one less potential avenue for making that miracle a reality.

I'm honestly surprised that so many people are ok with this, or even happy about it. I think if we were talking more about the specifics of Krug's deal and how he fits on the team, the reception might be more muted...but right now the mindset seems to be squarely on the "something is better than nothing" train of thought. I just don't see it that way at all.
Well, I'm not ok with it, but it's the reality of the situation that we have to live in. Armstrong wasn't willing to let a top 4 dman sign with another team, and I have to imagine he had a decent reason as to why he did it so quickly. Obviously if Pietrangelo doesn't sign, then you've weakened your defense tremendously, but I think they can still compete. However, Tarasenko will be on LTIR at the beginning of the season, and possibly Steen, but even if Steen is healthy, you have avenues to add Pietrangelo on a creative deal. I just think that people who are upset about the situation would've been just as, if not more pissed that Armstrong didn't sign a defenseman to replace the absence of Pietrangelo, assuming he left. We can't play what ifs, but in either direction, you will have people mad at the handling of the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stlwahoo

TheDizee

Trade Jordan Kyrou ASAP | ALWAYS RIGHT
Apr 5, 2014
20,123
12,883
Well, I'm not ok with it, but it's the reality of the situation that we have to live in. Armstrong wasn't willing to let a top 4 dman sign with another team, and I have to imagine he had a decent reason as to why he did it so quickly. Obviously if Pietrangelo doesn't sign, then you've weakened your defense tremendously, but I think they can still compete. However, Tarasenko will be on LTIR at the beginning of the season, and possibly Steen, but even if Steen is healthy, you have avenues to add Pietrangelo on a creative deal. I just think that people who are upset about the situation would've been just as, if not more pissed that Armstrong didn't sign a defenseman to replace the absence of Pietrangelo, assuming he left. We can't play what ifs, but in either direction, you will have people mad at the handling of the situation.
Steen is 100% on LTIR at start of season, Army said so yesterday. Said he has not progressed at all since end of the season. TBH I think his career may be over from the way Army talked about it. I have been over it a ton already but they can still easily keep all Dmen they have if they package Dunn + Bozak somewhere. Even if Steen comes back off LTIR you could just buy him out and still stay under the cap even with 91 returning.

I don't think its the best move to make if they want to resign 27 still but yes it is very doable IMO.
 

ezcreepin

Registered User
Dec 5, 2016
2,693
2,443
Steen is 100% on LTIR at start of season, Army said so yesterday. Said he has not progressed at all since end of the season. TBH I think his career may be over from the way Army talked about it. I have been over it a ton already but they can still easily keep all Dmen they have if they package Dunn + Bozak somewhere. Even if Steen comes back off LTIR you could just buy him out and still stay under the cap even with 91 returning.

I don't think its the best move to make if they want to resign 27 still but yes it is very doable IMO.
imo, there's no way the Blues buyout Steen during/after a pandemic. I just don't see how that is green-lighted after so much money was lost. However, having Tarasenko AND Steen on LTIR gives you so much flexibility to make moves that I just don't see how the Blues couldn't get Pietrangelo signed if they wanted to. We'll see I guess.
 
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,727
There are a lot of claims being lobbed around here without anything to back them up - such as

Petro wants the Karlsson money despite not winning a Norris
If someone can find tangible proof that Pietrangelo was asking for anything near 8/92, I'll accept it and we can move with the premise that he was asking for an excessive amount of money. But nothing I've seen suggests he was even near 8/76. The most I've seen is 8/68, which put the two sides within a half million dollars a year - but 8/68 was based on certain pieces not being in the contract. Add other things in Pietrangelo wanted, and his ask was as far down as 8/62.

Let's at least try to keep our speculation grounded in details that have actually been reported, not jump to baseless speculation that can't be reasonably inferred through actual events or reported details.


The part about Pietrangelo being reportedly "caught off guard" by the Krug signing is odd to me as well. Shouldn't his agents have explained this was a very real possibility? Maybe he just thought the Blues were bluffing and would cave like they did on his demands in 2013?
Maybe it's hearing that signing get made and getting hit with the reality that you are moving to a new team. I mean sure, he could have talked about it for weeks prior and his agents could have discussed what the market looked like and so on, but it's one thing to talk about it. It's another when you've spent 12 years in an organization, you go to FA and start talking to other teams, and your original team makes a move that effectively locks the door behind you. It makes "you might end up landing somewhere else" much more tangible, much more real.

but apparently the Petro camp wanted more than the 64M
how much more? we don’t know at this point, but if it was close we wouldn’t be talking about Krug
Again, supposedly $ were close but it was all the details underlying that were the problem.

I can see why Newport isn’t liked.
Q: if Newport is so disliked, why doesn't it have similar problems with even a notable number of the 30 other teams? Why is it seemingly always the Blues that have the most trouble with them?
 

Prosaic

Registered User
Sep 11, 2020
143
202
There is no one in the rest of the UFA defenseman class besides Pietrangelo that seems worth going out of our way to sign, Krug included. You're basically going to have to explore the trade market, which might actually produce some fruit worth having sometime in the near future if you have the ability to take on significant cap. With Krug's signing, the Blues just lost a lot of their potential leverage in that area.

Losing Pietrangelo pretty much drives a nail in the Blues chances of being a legitimate contender this year barring some miracle or other. Adding Krug as a replacement doesn't really change that. I'll be shocked if a top 4 of Parayko/Krug/Faulk/Scandella comes even close to being good enough to threaten for a Cup, so I think you still need that miracle even after adding Krug. There's just one less potential avenue for making that miracle a reality.

I'm honestly surprised that so many people are ok with this, or even happy about it. I think if we were talking more about the specifics of Krug's deal and how he fits on the team, the reception might be more muted...but right now the mindset seems to be squarely on the "something is better than nothing" train of thought. I just don't see it that way at all.
What’s interesting to me is that, it’s not like Krug is really much of an adequate defender and Pietrangelo is a significantly better offensive play driver at 5 on 5.

Krug started 70% of his shifts in the o-zone last year, yet still has relatively underwhelming 5 on 5 offense (and tbh, he always has).

People might wonder why the Bruins had no interest in retaining him, it’s because he has all the makings of a player that will fall off a cliff, just like Faulk. These players rely a lot on physical tools, not necessarily on high IQ. Krug especially, given he ‘plays bigger than his size’ which really, really ages poorly.

With Pietrangelo, you deploy him on the offensive side of the puck at 5 on 5, because he’s incredible at it and Parayko is in turn your main shutdown defender. And Pietrangelo was good enough in his own zone and in transition to carry a mediocre defender alongside of him. The Blues never needed to invest money into a LHD to play with Petro because he didn’t need a good partner to dominate.

Now, your left with Faulk, who has been inadequate at 5 on 5 his entire career, while being heavily reliant on a system revolved around him to produce. As any smart person could have anticipated, his play fell when the system didn’t revolve around feeding him one timers on the PP (and subsequently putting up a relatively underwhelming 30-35 points when you look at his deployment comparable’s). And Krug, who also only adds significant value on the PP. But you aren’t on the PP all game and when your not, Krug is hardly above replacement level. This is all while receiving favorable zone starts and having Carlo to mitigate his defensive deficiencies.

If the Blues utilize Parayko in the way Boston did with Carlo, it won’t work. They had McAvoy/Chara to deploy as a shutdown pairing. Who is there to stop the other teams top units for us, Scandella? Scandella has been sub replacement almost his entire career, and brings hardly any value. His defensive game isn’t elite, he’s horrible in transition. So pairing him with Faulk is a recipe for disaster, because you don’t have a defender that’s good enough at creating zone exits to keep them from getting caved in all game. The reason Scandella and Parayko worked is because Parayko is extremely good at zone exits, and obviously at defending.

Playing Krug and Faulk together is also just not going to end well. Their defensive value will most certainly be negative and neither are that great at play driving 5 on 5 offense.

Also, this pretty much ensures Dunn is gone. Which, when Krug and Faulk are both albatrosses in two years (Faulk was the moment it was signed), I promise you they’ll wish they had Dunn. I’m a big Dunn fan. His defensive metrics are very good and his offensive play driving is fantastic. A few rough playoff games doesn’t mitigate what he’s done for 3 seasons.

All in all, it’s flustering because Petro should’ve been priority #1 from July 1st 2019 and for some stupid reason he wasn’t. Instead, DA signed a number of guys into their late 30s who aren’t nearly of the caliber and now the Blues are significantly worse both in the short and long term outlook.
 

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
Well, I'm not ok with it, but it's the reality of the situation that we have to live in. Armstrong wasn't willing to let a top 4 dman sign with another team, and I have to imagine he had a decent reason as to why he did it so quickly.

Obviously if Pietrangelo doesn't sign, then you've weakened your defense tremendously, but I think they can still compete. However, Tarasenko will be on LTIR at the beginning of the season, and possibly Steen, but even if Steen is healthy, you have avenues to add Pietrangelo on a creative deal. I just think that people who are upset about the situation would've been just as, if not more pissed that Armstrong didn't sign a defenseman to replace the absence of Pietrangelo, assuming he left. We can't play what ifs, but in either direction, you will have people mad at the handling of the situation.
I believe the door is shut on Pietrangelo at this point. If the Blues thought he might still be an option, you would think they would let him know that.

I agree that a number of people would be upset, regardless. The Blues just lost their #1 D. There's very little to be happy about on that front, regardless of what you think the Blues should do to move on from there, because we're coming out the other side a worse team for the foreseeable future.
 

ezcreepin

Registered User
Dec 5, 2016
2,693
2,443
There are a lot of claims being lobbed around here without anything to back them up - such as


If someone can find tangible proof that Pietrangelo was asking for anything near 8/92, I'll accept it and we can move with the premise that he was asking for an excessive amount of money. But nothing I've seen suggests he was even near 8/76. The most I've seen is 8/68, which put the two sides within a half million dollars a year - but 8/68 was based on certain pieces not being in the contract. Add other things in Pietrangelo wanted, and his ask was as far down as 8/62.

Let's at least try to keep our speculation grounded in details that have actually been reported, not jump to baseless speculation that can't be reasonably inferred through actual events or reported details.
the Blues that have the most trouble with them?
You don't actually believe he was willing to go to 7.75 mil and Army said no, do you? Even at 8.5 mil, there's no way you're letting your franchise defenseman AND captain leave for 2 million dollars. Especially given that you're going to have Tarasenko on LTIR, which frees up 7.5 mil of static cap. Even with the reputation Armstrong has as a tough negotiator, there's no way he's letting Petro walk because of 2 million dollars, I just don't buy it and neither should you.
 

BlueKnight

Registered User
Apr 19, 2015
4,591
2,987
Alberta, Canada
I believe the door is shut on Pietrangelo at this point. If the Blues thought he might still be an option, you would think they would let him know that.

I agree that a number of people would be upset, regardless. The Blues just lost their #1 D. There's very little to be happy about on that front, regardless of what you think the Blues should do to move on from there, because we're coming out the other side a worse team for the foreseeable future.
I agree Easton. Yup the door is closed on Pietrangelo. I'm very unhappy Blues have no #1 dman anymore and their a worse team because of it. The Blues contending window is closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk80
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,727
You don't actually believe he was willing to go to 7.75 mil and Army said no, do you? Even at 8.5 mil, there's no way you're letting your franchise defenseman AND captain leave for 2 million dollars. Especially given that you're going to have Tarasenko on LTIR, which frees up 7.5 mil of static cap. Even with the reputation Armstrong has as a tough negotiator, there's no way he's letting Petro walk because of 2 million dollars, I just don't buy it and neither should you.
For like the 75th time now, I don't know exactly what each side was asking for - but I'll illustrate this with something I alluded to earlier.

If the two sides had agreed on $7.75M per but AP wanted the first 3 years to be 8/11/11 with signing bonuses of 7/6/6 while DA wanted those first 3 years to be 7/8/8 with signing bonuses of 1/3/4, there's a huge gap there. That's an ask of 30M of salary, $17M in signing bonus vs. an offer of $23M in salary, $8M in signing bonus. That first year is probably getting pro-rated because we're not playing a full season in '20-21; if they go in understanding that and figure we'll play 60% of it, AP is looking to get $7.6M for '20-21 while DA is trying to pay $4.6M. That's not an insignificant gap.

Throw in asks vs. offers of details on any NTC/NMC and when/if they apply (which I've mentioned and illustrated elsewhere), and it should be pretty easy to see that merely agreeing to the average salary across the life of the contract is barely scratching the surface of what the actual contract spells out.
 

Stupendous Yappi

Idiot Control Now!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,860
14,000
Erwin, TN
I agree Easton. Yup the door is closed on Pietrangelo. I'm very unhappy Blues have no #1 dman anymore and their a worse team because of it. The Blues contending window is closed.
No hope for Parayko growing into that role? I would argue he’s a reasonable #1D. He won’t be asked to carry as much of the offensive load as Pietro did. There are plenty of other places for see that production come from on D.
 

ezcreepin

Registered User
Dec 5, 2016
2,693
2,443
For like the 75th time now, I don't know exactly what each side was asking for - but I'll illustrate this with something I alluded to earlier.

If the two sides had agreed on $7.75M per but AP wanted the first 3 years to be 8/11/11 with signing bonuses of 7/6/6 while DA wanted those first 3 years to be 7/8/8 with signing bonuses of 1/3/4, there's a huge gap there. That's an ask of 30M of salary, $17M in signing bonus vs. an offer of $23M in salary, $8M in signing bonus. That first year is probably getting pro-rated because we're not playing a full season in '20-21; if they go in understanding that and figure we'll play 60% of it, AP is looking to get $7.6M for '20-21 while DA is trying to pay $4.6M. That's not an insignificant gap.

Throw in asks vs. offers of details on any NTC/NMC and when/if they apply (which I've mentioned and illustrated elsewhere), and it should be pretty easy to see that merely agreeing to the average salary across the life of the contract is barely scratching the surface of what the actual contract spells out.
If you're agreeing on salary, there's no way you let the deal fall because of structure. It would be different if this player was someone like Schwartz or Perron, in which the team isn't revolved around them offensively. Petro is your #1 franchise defenseman, your captain, and the person you count on the most in your back end. You aren't going to just find another one, let alone the guy who won you a Stanley Cup. Armstrong even said this wasn't about structure after they signed Krug, so I don't know why you're citing that as a reason why they couldn't get the deal done.
 

Stealth JD

Don't condescend me, man.
Sponsor
Jan 16, 2006
16,863
8,290
Bonita Springs, FL
No hope for Parayko growing into that role? I would argue he’s a reasonable #1D. He won’t be asked to carry as much of the offensive load as Pietro did. There are plenty of other places for see that production come from on D.

just wait two years for when Parayko asks for the Pietrangelo-contract and finds is from Edmonton, but not St. Louis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simon IC
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,727
If you're agreeing on salary, there's no way you let the deal fall because of structure. It would be different if this player was someone like Schwartz or Perron, in which the team isn't revolved around them offensively. Petro is your #1 franchise defenseman, your captain, and the person you count on the most in your back end. You aren't going to just find another one, let alone the guy who won you a Stanley Cup. Armstrong even said this wasn't about structure after they signed Krug, so I don't know why you're citing that as a reason why they couldn't get the deal done.
Elsewhere, I've explained (I think more than once) how one can say something that's factually true but not an accurate reflection of the situation. Read that, re-read "it wasn't about structure" and then ask yourself how that can be factually accurate but still be an improper portrayal of talks between the two sides.
 

BlueKnight

Registered User
Apr 19, 2015
4,591
2,987
Alberta, Canada
No hope for Parayko growing into that role? I would argue he’s a reasonable #1D. He won’t be asked to carry as much of the offensive load as Pietro did. There are plenty of other places for see that production come from on D.

Colt is a good player but he can't hold Petro's jock. The Blues D as a whole went from being one of the best in the NHL with Petro to one of the worse without Petro.
 

Stupendous Yappi

Idiot Control Now!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,860
14,000
Erwin, TN
Colt is a good player but he can't hold Petro's jock. The Blues D as a whole went from being one of the best in the NHL with Petro to one of the worse without Petro.
Parayko is a 1D though. He is not as good as Pietro, but you are going too far in saying the Blues lack a 1D. Parayko is most certainly in the top 31 D-men in the league, and probably in the top half of that group.
 

BlueKnight

Registered User
Apr 19, 2015
4,591
2,987
Alberta, Canada
Parayko is a 1D though. He is not as good as Pietro, but you are going too far in saying the Blues lack a 1D. Parayko is most certainly in the top 31 D-men in the league, and probably in the top half of that group.

Petro is a is a #1D and a top 5D and you are replacing him with a top 30D. Colt is a very good #2D but he isn't a #1D Sorry i disagree with you.
 

Stealth JD

Don't condescend me, man.
Sponsor
Jan 16, 2006
16,863
8,290
Bonita Springs, FL
Crazy seeing how the Faulk deal has gone thus far and then watching Army double-down and do the exact same thing once again with Krug. Guessing Husso has a nice 20-game stretch next year and gets rewarded with a 4 x $4.5 contract extension and we watch Schwartz walk because we’re up against the cap.

Army has lost his damn mind since the Cup-win. Had Petro simply walked, there’s still no need to bring in Krug. You can see how valuable cap space is...why even spend the money on a need that doesn’t exist...after doing the exact same nonsensical thing last season?
 
Last edited:

Stupendous Yappi

Idiot Control Now!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,860
14,000
Erwin, TN
Crazy seeing how the Faulk deal has gone thus far and then watching Army double-down and do the exact same thing once again with Krug. Guessing Husso has a nice 20-game stretch next year and gets rewarded with a 4 x $4.5 contract extension and we watch Schwartz walk because we’re up against the cap.

Army has lost his damn mind since the Cup-win. Had Petro simply walked, there’s still no need to bring in Krug. You can see how valuable cap space is...why even spend the money on a need that doesn’t exist...after doing the exact same nonsensical thing last season?
Can I quote this after Faulk wins the Norris this year?

But seriously, I’m pretty curious how Berube deploys this roster, and how Mikkola and Perunovich fit into things.
 

stl76

No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
Jul 2, 2015
9,371
8,876
Maybe it's hearing that signing get made and getting hit with the reality that you are moving to a new team. I mean sure, he could have talked about it for weeks prior and his agents could have discussed what the market looked like and so on, but it's one thing to talk about it. It's another when you've spent 12 years in an organization, you go to FA and start talking to other teams, and your original team makes a move that effectively locks the door behind you. It makes "you might end up landing somewhere else" much more tangible, much more real.
I suppose that's possible. Maybe the reality of having to move on just hit different when he saw the contract.

For the record, I was not intending to lob any baseless claims around. Just curious and speculating a bit.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad