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/

BlueKnight

Registered User
Apr 19, 2015
4,591
2,987
Alberta, Canada
64m for Pietrangelo vs 45.5m for Krug. Which deal allows you to more easily pay Parayko, Schwartz, & Thomas?

Ok answer me this. Which deal would keep the Blues a contender 64m for Pietrangelo or 45m for Krug?

I know which one I would choose. I want to hear your answer.
 
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,727
Speculation - Stillman and Armstrong both got tired of Petro playing them. They made a final fair offer and he didn't take it.
At least this got qualified with "speculation" instead of being stated as some absolute truth - even if it's still not supported by anything that's been reported.

The market for Pietrangelo was weak on day 1. Armstrong couldn't even wait to let him make a decision? And we replace him with Krug. I blame Army for that one, If he didn't rushed, Pietrangelo still would've be here.
Counter-idea: the market for Pietrangelo was exclusive because he was only willing to talk to a few teams. Maybe he even had different price tags for each. Yes, cap constraints impacted who was even interested off the bat, but if he's wiling to take $8M per to go to Vegas and get the various provisions (signing bonuses, NMC) that he wants, he's not taking that same exact deal from Detroit or Ottawa or Anaheim or San Jose (pretending they'd have the room to fit him in) to go play on a likely shitty team for a few years while it gets its act together.
 

Vektor

Registered User
Jun 11, 2018
530
711
Ok answer me this. Which deal would keep the Blues a contender 64m for Pietrangelo or 45m for Krug?

I know which one I would choose. I want to hear your answer.
I already answered this. Keeping Pietrangelo makes us a contender for roughly two years and then puts us in a much worse position. Keep in mind, that's the same contendor team that got bounced in the first round by Vancouver.
 

Halak Ness Monster

Registered User
Nov 11, 2010
2,531
1,447
St. Louis, MO
The first one. And if we don't win in two years we are absolutely gutted and much worse than we will be now.

I hate to tell you but we’re heading that direction after the Krug signing. You’re likely not gonna like his decline. An extra 1.5 mil in cap space wasn’t worth it.

Edit: Oh and it doesn’t make us a true Cup contender the next 2 years either. Tough decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vollie27

BlueKnight

Registered User
Apr 19, 2015
4,591
2,987
Alberta, Canada
I already answered this. Keeping Pietrangelo makes us a contender for roughly two years and then puts us in a much worse position. Keep in mind, that's the same contendor team that got bounced in the first round by Vancouver.

I disagree. With Pietrangelo the Blues are real true contenders for the next 4 years at least. Adding Krug doesn't make the Blues a true contender for the next 4 years. After 2 years the Blues will be regretting signing Krug and wished they had Pietrangelo instead.

And i wish some people would stop talking about what happened in the bubble losing to the Canucks
 

Em etah Eh

Maroon PP
Jul 17, 2007
3,130
1,537
I don’t like this line of thinking. #1 Dmen are a lot like #1 centers, #1 QBs, #1 starting pitchers...just because you’re top 30 doesn’t mean you’re a true #1. Not every team is going to have a true #1. They’re difficult to find.

Parayko doesn’t have the offensive IQ and instincts to take over a game like a top dman can. I love his defensive and neutral zone game. The offensive side just isn’t quite there. We’ll see, though. Maybe it changes now that Petro is gone. I doubt it.

And if it does come along, then we can kiss him good bye in 2 years.
 

Linkens Mastery

Conductor of the TankTown Express
Jan 15, 2014
19,753
17,321
Hyrule
I truly think we should keep Pietrangelo non-signing and Krug signing separate. If anything we should blame the Faulk deal. I fully expect that if we didn't sign Faulk and resigned Pietrangelo we would still be going after Krug this off-season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mud the ACAS

joe galiba

Registered User
Apr 16, 2020
2,033
2,311
I must be missing the part where 64 million was anywhere close to signing Petro
my understanding was he declined to sign for more than that, so why does that number keep getting tossed around?
 
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,727
I must be missing the part where 64 million was anywhere close to signing Petro
my understanding was he declined to sign for more than that, so why does that number keep getting tossed around?
The Blues last offer was reported as 8/64. I think it's somewhat inaccurate to say Pietrangelo wouldn't have signed for that, and more accurate to say Pietrangelo wasn't going to sign for 8/64 without knowing how that looked by year between salary and signing bonus and what the specifics of any NMC really were. That's something Armstrong reportedly wouldn't discuss until AP agreed to term/dollars.

Hence, I think there was potentially some wiggle room for what Pietrangelo was willing to accept but it depended on what everything looked like under the hood. Without knowing that, he wasn't biting.
 

stl76

No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
Jul 2, 2015
9,372
8,879
As always, stl76, I appreciate your honest and respectful reply. Fair enough, I will try to keep an open mind in regards to Krug. There is one thing I need to make very clear, however. My familiarity with Justin Faulk's style of play goes back quite a bit. I read the trade boards voraciously, and I am constantly looking up stats and evaluations on players, and I like to a make a mental list of players that I would want on my team, and of those I wouldn't. As Faulk was in the last year of his contract, his name came up a lot on the trade boards. I got to read many insightful evaluations from Carolina fans. Because the Leafs were interested in a RD, I got to read Leafs fans observations as well, which of course provided a lot of reading material. Their posts were varied, and needed a bit more sifting, but were ultimately useful as well. In turn, this made me look up Faulk's career stats and whatever advanced stats I could comprehend at the time. The first thing I noticed was the abysmal +/- stats, but I kept in mind he was on a weak team with a history of bad goaltending. So I looked at more clips and continued reading the trade threads, and it wasn't long before I was convinced that I wanted absolutely no part of Justin Faulk. When I heard we traded for him, I almost threw my phone. So you see, my informed opinion of Justin Faulk goes a long way back, and my opposition to him being a Blue was right from the start. I assure you, my friend, my dislike of Faulk's play is not based in one shortened season.
Fair enough, apologies if I inaccurately summarized your position or put words in your mouth. You deserve more benefit of the doubt than that.

There has just been a lot of negativity going on around here lately and I think we all owe it to the players to give them a fair shake this coming season. With or without Pietrangelo, there’s still a LOT to like about this team and I think they will be playing with a chip on their shoulder after the way last season ended!
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,484
13,988
Does the guy not watch the nhl? Why would anyone be surprised by that. He's an offensive defenseman.
Which we now have 3 of, plus another D man who isn't great offensively but needs to be sheltered because he isn't great defensively either.

So to answer the question you ignored, who are we playing when we are trying to protect a lead? Krug has never demonstrated an ability to play adequate defense against top 6 players. Neither has Faulk. Neither has Dunn. Neither has Bortz. Dunn and Krug can't kill penalties at an NHL level. Who kills penalties when any of Parayko, Scandella, Faulk or Bortuzzo gets hurt or takes a penalty?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranksu

67Blues

Got it for Bobby
Mar 22, 2013
4,551
4,894
Section 111
giphy.gif
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad