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

[Halak Ness Monster]

OK, so what's your implication here? That Petro was being difficult and Army couldn't handle him, or that Army was just being a jerk and not caring about his family? Seems you're asserting some nefarious activity here which I don't see. I get you're obviously not thrilled with the outcome, but I think Petro was decided and Army knew it to such a degree that he had to make calls up to a year ago in preparation.

Huh? I’m simply saying you have to make exceptions on NMCs in today’s NHL.

64 players have NMCs. Plenty of teams are ok with them. Plenty of teams haven’t been burned by them.

I could get not wanting to give a NMC to a player who has maybe shown up overweight to camp before, or has had some injuries in the past, or even run ins with the law.

As Army said, Alex Pietrangelo is a model citizen and leader. He has been healthy 99% of his career. He has done everything right off the ice 100% of his career.

This is where Army should have made an exception. The reward greatly outweighed the risk.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Huh? I’m simply saying you have to make exceptions on NMCs in today’s NHL.

64 players have NMCs. Plenty of teams are ok with them. Plenty of teams haven’t been burned by them.

I could get not wanting to give a NMC to a player who has maybe shown up overweight to camp before, or has had some injuries in the past, or even run ins with the law.

As Army said, Alex Pietrangelo is a model citizen and leader. He has been healthy 99% of his career. He has done everything right off the ice 100% of his career.

This is where Army should have made an exception. The reward greatly outweighed the risk.

And he more or less did. While he didn't offer a full NMC, he offered a partial one, something he's never offered before. Heck, even if he did offer a full NMC, a deal still would not have been made IMO. And I say good for Petro for getting what he wanted.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

And he more or less did. While he didn't offer a full NMC, he offered a partial one, something he's never offered before. Heck, even if he did offer a full NMC, a deal still would not have been made IMO. And I say good for Petro for getting what he wanted.

A partial NMC isn’t really a NMC. At least not to a guy raising young triplets.

 

[bleedblue1223]

A partial NMC isn’t really a NMC. At least not to a guy raising young triplets.

Sure, and I agree, but I don't think it's correct to say that he didn't make an exception, he definitely did, just not a big enough one. It wasn't like Army went to Petro and said this are my hard and set rules that I have, so all players must abide by them. If Petro signed he would've been an exception and other players would not have had the same treatment IMO.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

A partial NMC isn’t really a NMC. At least not to a guy raising young triplets.

It’s not, but I think there’s ways around that. I always kind of figured that we’d budge and do something like a full NTC the first five years (on an 8 year deal) and full NMC on the last three. Because there’s no way in hell he falls off a cliff so bad in 5 years that he gets waived.

I suspect the signing bonuses were just as big, if not more of an issue as the NMC. 35 mil in signing bonuses is a crap load. And when taken in totality, that is about as buyout proof as a contact can get.

 

[LUF]

Hi Torey Krug. I hope you'll like the Jimmy Carson treatment you'll get here.

For what's it's worth, I think 6.5 is entireley fair for Krug, especially since LD was a position of need, especially for a player who's very well known here. It would have been fun having that other RD still in the team, but business is business sometimes and it sure sucks.

 

[Brian39]

I don't like the overall organizational decision to move on from Petro and tie our wagon to both Krug and Faulk. In a vacuum, Krug's contract isn't a bad one but I think it is baffling poor roster construction to add a small, largely PP specialist to a team that needs defensive strength and already has 3 players who can QB a PP at least adequately. I genuinely don't know who kills penalties on this team whenever any D besides Dunn/Krug take a penalty and the entire philosophy of going cheap in net with a positionally sound, average NHL starter makes less and less sense the worse you are defensively. I think the blue line is noticeably worse than it was 13 months ago and we don't have the flexibility to improve it over the next 4 years unless we can get out of Faulk's contract.

 

[Brian39]

Having said all that in my previous post, I want to talk about the Krug contract in a vacuum. Because $6.5M is good value for who he is as a player. Additionally, I think he will age well.

I did about 30 minutes of research into the career arcs of other small, offensive D men in the salary cap era and the quick results suggest that these D men age exceptionally well. To begin, I located all sub-6-foot D men who had at least one 50 point season in their age 28 season and beyond. I relied on Hockey reference, so I used their age cutoff. They considered last season to be Krug’s age 28 season, which is why I chose this year for my search.

There were eight sub-6-foot D men to have at least one 50 point season after turning 28: Lubomir Visnovsky, Dan Boyle, Brian Campbell, Mark Streit, Brian Rafalski, Mathieu Schneider, Kimmo Timmonen, and James Wisniewksi. I then went on to look at their careers from age 29 to their age 35 season (the duration of Krug’s contract). Here is the breakdown:

Visnovsky: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, one 30-39 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 32 games in the season where he had 30-39 points and was on pace for 50 points. All in all, he played 503 games in those 7 years at an average 55 point pace.

Boyle: three 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 45 games in his sub-30 point season and was on pace for 55 points. All in all, he played 508 games in those 7 years at an average 57 point pace.

Campbell: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, two 30-39 point seasons, and two sub-30 point seasons. He was on pace for 45 points during one of his two 30-39 point seasons. All in all, he played 509 games in those 7 years at a 42 point pace.

Streit: two 50+ point seasons, 3 40-49 point seasons and one 30-39 point season. He missed a full season due to a shoulder injury at 33 years old but returned at the exact level as when he left. All in all, 443 games played at an average 51 point pace.

Rafalski: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, and one 30-39 point season (on pace for 44 points). One season lost to the full-year lockout. All in all, 439 games played at an average 52 point pace.

Schneider: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, three 30-39 point seasons (was on a 44 point pace in one of them). One season lost due to the full season lockout and then his 36 year old season saw a 50+ point year. All in all, 439 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Timmonen: two 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, two 30-39 point seasons. One season lost due to the full-year lockout. All in all, 480 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Wisniewski: one 50+ point season, one 30-39 point season and then he was out of the NHL at 31 years old. This is the only example where a 7 year contract would be a complete disaster, but injuries plagued him his entire career in a way that we just haven’t seen with Krug. Obviously there is always risk of a sudden, career-derailing injury but I wouldn’t say this example scares me.

Taken together, only 1 of the 8 would have been a disaster on a 7 year deal starting at 29 and that player had a long history of injuries. The other 7 guys played the vast majority of games on their contract. There were a handful of minor injuries and one season-long injury. Out of 40+ total seasons, that isn’t really cause for concern. They also sustained production well. There were very few sub-30 point seasons and more importantly, there wasn’t a trend where production steadily fell throughout the contract. The 50+ point seasons were pretty evenly scattered among the ages and all 7 guys who played through 35 years old averaged 40+ points over those 7 seasons.

TLDR: There is a pretty good track record of small, offensive D men being able to sustain high-level production through their early and mid 30s. History suggests that Krug shouldn’t fall off a cliff during this contract. He almost certainly won’t be a 50+ point D man throughout the deal, but it looks like we should be able to expect several 50+ point seasons, a couple 40-49 point seasons and then 30+ point production in a couple seasons (with one of those likely seeing a 20ish game injury while he is playing at a 40+ point pace).
I think there is still major debate about whether this team should have allocated $6.5M a year for a PP specialist who needs to be sheltered at 5 on 5. However, I feel confident saying that he will provide production throughout the deal.

 

[TheDizee]

Krug is gonna become a fan favorite and the new Sobotka.

Love this deal!

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Having said all that in my previous post, I want to talk about the Krug contract in a vacuum. Because $6.5M is good value for who he is as a player. Additionally, I think he will age well.

I did about 30 minutes of research into the career arcs of other small, offensive D men in the salary cap era and the quick results suggest that these D men age exceptionally well. To begin, I located all sub-6-foot D men who had at least one 50 point season in their age 28 season and beyond. I relied on Hockey reference, so I used their age cutoff. They considered last season to be Krug’s age 28 season, which is why I chose this year for my search.

There were eight sub-6-foot D men to have at least one 50 point season after turning 28: Lubomir Visnovsky, Dan Boyle, Brian Campbell, Mark Streit, Brian Rafalski, Mathieu Schneider, Kimmo Timmonen, and James Wisniewksi. I then went on to look at their careers from age 29 to their age 35 season (the duration of Krug’s contract). Here is the breakdown:

Visnovsky: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, one 30-39 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 32 games in the season where he had 30-39 points and was on pace for 50 points. All in all, he played 503 games in those 7 years at an average 55 point pace.

Boyle: three 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 45 games in his sub-30 point season and was on pace for 55 points. All in all, he played 508 games in those 7 years at an average 57 point pace.

Campbell: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, two 30-39 point seasons, and two sub-30 point seasons. He was on pace for 45 points during one of his two 30-39 point seasons. All in all, he played 509 games in those 7 years at a 42 point pace.

Streit: two 50+ point seasons, 3 40-49 point seasons and one 30-39 point season. He missed a full season due to a shoulder injury at 33 years old but returned at the exact level as when he left. All in all, 443 games played at an average 51 point pace.

Rafalski: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, and one 30-39 point season (on pace for 44 points). One season lost to the full-year lockout. All in all, 439 games played at an average 52 point pace.

Schneider: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, three 30-39 point seasons (was on a 44 point pace in one of them). One season lost due to the full season lockout and then his 36 year old season saw a 50+ point year. All in all, 439 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Timmonen: two 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, two 30-39 point seasons. One season lost due to the full-year lockout. All in all, 480 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Wisniewski: one 50+ point season, one 30-39 point season and then he was out of the NHL at 31 years old. This is the only example where a 7 year contract would be a complete disaster, but injuries plagued him his entire career in a way that we just haven’t seen with Krug. Obviously there is always risk of a sudden, career-derailing injury but I wouldn’t say this example scares me.

Taken together, only 1 of the 8 would have been a disaster on a 7 year deal starting at 29 and that player had a long history of injuries. The other 7 guys played the vast majority of games on their contract. There were a handful of minor injuries and one season-long injury. Out of 40+ total seasons, that isn’t really cause for concern. They also sustained production well. There were very few sub-30 point seasons and more importantly, there wasn’t a trend where production steadily fell throughout the contract. The 50+ point seasons were pretty evenly scattered among the ages and all 7 guys who played through 35 years old averaged 40+ points over those 7 seasons.

TLDR: There is a pretty good track record of small, offensive D men being able to sustain high-level production through their early and mid 30s. History suggests that Krug shouldn’t fall off a cliff during this contract. He almost certainly won’t be a 50+ point D man throughout the deal, but it looks like we should be able to expect several 50+ point seasons, a couple 40-49 point seasons and then 30+ point production in a couple seasons (with one of those likely seeing a 20ish game injury while he is playing at a 40+ point pace).
I think there is still major debate about whether this team should have allocated $6.5M a year for a PP specialist who needs to be sheltered at 5 on 5. However, I feel confident saying that he will provide production throughout the deal.

Interesting. These guys are really smart players- you have to be to star as undersized D. That cerebral game should age better than physical skill.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Krug is gonna become a fan favorite and the new Sobotka.

Love this deal!

I liked the old (pre-KHL) Sobotka much better than the new Sobotka. Hopefully Krug picks someone else to emulate!

 

[Brian39]

Krug is gonna become a fan favorite and the new Sobotka.

Love this deal!

Sobotka has 48 points in 167 NHL games in the 3 seasons he played since turning 29. I desperately hope Krug doesn't follow that career path.

But even just looking at Sobotka in his prime, I would want way, way more than that from a guy making $6.5M a year for 7 years. Krug is making top pairing money. He needs to be a hell of a lot more than a middle of the roster spark plug to be even remotely worth the money.

 

[Celtic Note]

I have a sincere request. Can we please keep the Petro stuff in one of the Petro threads? It would be great to talk about Krug, his contract and how we envision he will be used on the Blues.

Admittedly, I could personally use a break from all threads being about Petro. Obviously no one has to honor the request, but it would be appreciated.

 

[Celtic Note]

Having said all that in my previous post, I want to talk about the Krug contract in a vacuum. Because $6.5M is good value for who he is as a player. Additionally, I think he will age well.

I did about 30 minutes of research into the career arcs of other small, offensive D men in the salary cap era and the quick results suggest that these D men age exceptionally well. To begin, I located all sub-6-foot D men who had at least one 50 point season in their age 28 season and beyond. I relied on Hockey reference, so I used their age cutoff. They considered last season to be Krug’s age 28 season, which is why I chose this year for my search.

There were eight sub-6-foot D men to have at least one 50 point season after turning 28: Lubomir Visnovsky, Dan Boyle, Brian Campbell, Mark Streit, Brian Rafalski, Mathieu Schneider, Kimmo Timmonen, and James Wisniewksi. I then went on to look at their careers from age 29 to their age 35 season (the duration of Krug’s contract). Here is the breakdown:

Visnovsky: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, one 30-39 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 32 games in the season where he had 30-39 points and was on pace for 50 points. All in all, he played 503 games in those 7 years at an average 55 point pace.

Boyle: three 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 45 games in his sub-30 point season and was on pace for 55 points. All in all, he played 508 games in those 7 years at an average 57 point pace.

Campbell: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, two 30-39 point seasons, and two sub-30 point seasons. He was on pace for 45 points during one of his two 30-39 point seasons. All in all, he played 509 games in those 7 years at a 42 point pace.

Streit: two 50+ point seasons, 3 40-49 point seasons and one 30-39 point season. He missed a full season due to a shoulder injury at 33 years old but returned at the exact level as when he left. All in all, 443 games played at an average 51 point pace.

Rafalski: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, and one 30-39 point season (on pace for 44 points). One season lost to the full-year lockout. All in all, 439 games played at an average 52 point pace.

Schneider: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, three 30-39 point seasons (was on a 44 point pace in one of them). One season lost due to the full season lockout and then his 36 year old season saw a 50+ point year. All in all, 439 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Timmonen: two 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, two 30-39 point seasons. One season lost due to the full-year lockout. All in all, 480 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Wisniewski: one 50+ point season, one 30-39 point season and then he was out of the NHL at 31 years old. This is the only example where a 7 year contract would be a complete disaster, but injuries plagued him his entire career in a way that we just haven’t seen with Krug. Obviously there is always risk of a sudden, career-derailing injury but I wouldn’t say this example scares me.

Taken together, only 1 of the 8 would have been a disaster on a 7 year deal starting at 29 and that player had a long history of injuries. The other 7 guys played the vast majority of games on their contract. There were a handful of minor injuries and one season-long injury. Out of 40+ total seasons, that isn’t really cause for concern. They also sustained production well. There were very few sub-30 point seasons and more importantly, there wasn’t a trend where production steadily fell throughout the contract. The 50+ point seasons were pretty evenly scattered among the ages and all 7 guys who played through 35 years old averaged 40+ points over those 7 seasons.

TLDR: There is a pretty good track record of small, offensive D men being able to sustain high-level production through their early and mid 30s. History suggests that Krug shouldn’t fall off a cliff during this contract. He almost certainly won’t be a 50+ point D man throughout the deal, but it looks like we should be able to expect several 50+ point seasons, a couple 40-49 point seasons and then 30+ point production in a couple seasons (with one of those likely seeing a 20ish game injury while he is playing at a 40+ point pace).
I think there is still major debate about whether this team should have allocated $6.5M a year for a PP specialist who needs to be sheltered at 5 on 5. However, I feel confident saying that he will provide production throughout the deal.

Thank you for providing this analysis. I am sure it took some time.

I am not entirely down on Krug. He is a likable player if you focus on what he does well. I don’t think he was the best fit given our roster construction, but I am hoping we can rectify that by moving Faulk and finding a stalwart defender. I would feel much better about our D in that sort of situation than I do today.

 

[Stealth JD]

The Krug contract is fine. The Faulk contract is a disaster. The roster contruction with Krug is a disaster. The lack of cap flexibility is a disaster. Armstrong needs to replenish the pipeline and trade some redundant parts.

With attendance likely not being 100% of capacity next year, and the 2021 draft looking quite nice, it wouldn't be the worst time in the world for the Blues to take a season to regroup and reload. The Central, aside from Minnesota (who will be scary in a few years) will be a dogfight next season.

 

[joe galiba]

it seems like some of the concern about Krug is the percent of offensive zone starts

to me a large part of the reason is that he is really good in the o-zone and it most certainly makes sense have him in that position for as large a percentage of his ice time as possible

 

[Novacain]

it seems like some of the concern about Krug is the percent of offensive zone starts

to me a large part of the reason is that he is really good in the o-zone and it most certainly makes sense have him in that position for as large a percentage of his ice time as possible

I mean, it's hard to argue against production like *checks stats* 21 even strength points, tied for 42nd in the NHL, behind such constanty scoring threats like Jake Muzzin, John Marino (In less games!), Ryan Graves, and, oh, hey, Colton Parayko! Parayko start in the defensive zone at an extremely high rates, and he still put up more even strength points then "70% offensive zone start" Torey Krug. So that argument feels weird to me.

 

[Novacain]

The Krug contract is fine. The Faulk contract is a disaster. The roster contruction with Krug is a disaster. The lack of cap flexibility is a disaster. Armstrong needs to replenish the pipeline and trade some redundant parts.

With attendance likely not being 100% of capacity next year, and the 2021 draft looking quite nice, it wouldn't be the worst time in the world for the Blues to take a season to regroup and reload. The Central, aside from Minnesota (who will be scary in a few years) will be a dogfight next season.

Weird you pick Minnesota as the team that's out of the ballgame. The biggest weakness they had was Dubnyk, and they have a great defensive core.

It's Chicago that has basically punted away and have no chance to contend to me.

 

[Stealth JD]

Weird you pick Minnesota as the team that's out of the ballgame. The biggest weakness they had was Dubnyk, and they have a great defensive core.

It's Chicago that has basically punted away and have no chance to contend to me.

Minny dumped Koivu and Staal...don’t see their offense being able to keep up with the rest of the division; despite their defense still being very good.

 

[TheDizee]

minny and chicago both suck. im not big on winnipeg or trashville either.

dallas and colorado are the teams to beat.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Having said all that in my previous post, I want to talk about the Krug contract in a vacuum. Because $6.5M is good value for who he is as a player. Additionally, I think he will age well.

I did about 30 minutes of research into the career arcs of other small, offensive D men in the salary cap era and the quick results suggest that these D men age exceptionally well. To begin, I located all sub-6-foot D men who had at least one 50 point season in their age 28 season and beyond. I relied on Hockey reference, so I used their age cutoff. They considered last season to be Krug’s age 28 season, which is why I chose this year for my search.

There were eight sub-6-foot D men to have at least one 50 point season after turning 28: Lubomir Visnovsky, Dan Boyle, Brian Campbell, Mark Streit, Brian Rafalski, Mathieu Schneider, Kimmo Timmonen, and James Wisniewksi. I then went on to look at their careers from age 29 to their age 35 season (the duration of Krug’s contract). Here is the breakdown:

Visnovsky: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, one 30-39 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 32 games in the season where he had 30-39 points and was on pace for 50 points. All in all, he played 503 games in those 7 years at an average 55 point pace.

Boyle: three 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, and one sub-30 point season. He missed 45 games in his sub-30 point season and was on pace for 55 points. All in all, he played 508 games in those 7 years at an average 57 point pace.

Campbell: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, two 30-39 point seasons, and two sub-30 point seasons. He was on pace for 45 points during one of his two 30-39 point seasons. All in all, he played 509 games in those 7 years at a 42 point pace.

Streit: two 50+ point seasons, 3 40-49 point seasons and one 30-39 point season. He missed a full season due to a shoulder injury at 33 years old but returned at the exact level as when he left. All in all, 443 games played at an average 51 point pace.

Rafalski: three 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, and one 30-39 point season (on pace for 44 points). One season lost to the full-year lockout. All in all, 439 games played at an average 52 point pace.

Schneider: two 50+ point seasons, one 40-49 point season, three 30-39 point seasons (was on a 44 point pace in one of them). One season lost due to the full season lockout and then his 36 year old season saw a 50+ point year. All in all, 439 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Timmonen: two 50+ point seasons, two 40-49 point seasons, two 30-39 point seasons. One season lost due to the full-year lockout. All in all, 480 games played at an average 45 point pace.

Wisniewski: one 50+ point season, one 30-39 point season and then he was out of the NHL at 31 years old. This is the only example where a 7 year contract would be a complete disaster, but injuries plagued him his entire career in a way that we just haven’t seen with Krug. Obviously there is always risk of a sudden, career-derailing injury but I wouldn’t say this example scares me.

Taken together, only 1 of the 8 would have been a disaster on a 7 year deal starting at 29 and that player had a long history of injuries. The other 7 guys played the vast majority of games on their contract. There were a handful of minor injuries and one season-long injury. Out of 40+ total seasons, that isn’t really cause for concern. They also sustained production well. There were very few sub-30 point seasons and more importantly, there wasn’t a trend where production steadily fell throughout the contract. The 50+ point seasons were pretty evenly scattered among the ages and all 7 guys who played through 35 years old averaged 40+ points over those 7 seasons.

TLDR: There is a pretty good track record of small, offensive D men being able to sustain high-level production through their early and mid 30s. History suggests that Krug shouldn’t fall off a cliff during this contract. He almost certainly won’t be a 50+ point D man throughout the deal, but it looks like we should be able to expect several 50+ point seasons, a couple 40-49 point seasons and then 30+ point production in a couple seasons (with one of those likely seeing a 20ish game injury while he is playing at a 40+ point pace).
I think there is still major debate about whether this team should have allocated $6.5M a year for a PP specialist who needs to be sheltered at 5 on 5. However, I feel confident saying that he will provide production throughout the deal.

I appreciate the effort that went into this a lot, and find it interesting.

The one caveat would be that this doesn't really separate out PP usefulness (which tends to age well for highly skilled players), vs ES effectiveness (which doesn't necessarily, especially for smaller/slower already defensively deficient players). I'm not going to try to definitively rank Krug against all those comparables at ES effectiveness, but I feel comfortable saying that a good number of them were better than Krug defensively, and a number of them were faster as well.

I don't doubt that Krug could put up a good number of points on the PP until the end of his career. The question is will he reach a point where he's such a liability at ES that the Blues will be reduced to making him a $6.5M highly sheltered 3rd pairing PP specialist. He could put up 35 points in that role and still be a roster albatross.

 

[Prosaic]

Minny dumped Koivu and Staal...don’t see their offense being able to keep up with the rest of the division; despite their defense still being very good.

The Staal trade was brutal, but as this point in his career Koivu was a below replacement level offensive player. Good defensively, but he’s a 4C if your planning on winning anything.

They are also adding a mega-star in Kaprizov and don’t sleep on Rossi. But Kaprizov coming in is a superstar forward, don’t sell him short.

If Talbot/Kakhonen provide adequate enough goaltending (couldn’t be worse than Dubnyk/Stalock if they tried) then Minnesota will be competitive. Whether you think they’ll make the playoffs or not, is a tough call, but they’ll be competitive.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I appreciate the effort that went into this a lot, and find it interesting.

The one caveat would be that this doesn't really separate out PP usefulness (which tends to age well for highly skilled players), vs ES effectiveness (which doesn't necessarily, especially for smaller/slower already defensively deficient players). I'm not going to try to definitively rank Krug against all those comparables at ES effectiveness, but I feel comfortable saying that a good number of them were better than Krug defensively, and a number of them were faster as well.

I don't doubt that Krug could put up a good number of points on the PP until the end of his career. The question is will he reach a point where he's such a liability at ES that the Blues will be reduced to making him a $6.5M highly sheltered 3rd pairing PP specialist. He could put up 35 points in that role and still be a roster albatross.

We are going to have a lot of that, Army is making a 4ish year bet. Schenn, Faulk, Krug, etc. will all have pretty bad contracts at the end, and who knows which other ~30 year old player will get a 7+ year deal. Does Schwartz get added, does ROR/Tarasenko get an extension to their late 30s, does Parayko, do we bring another new guy in? We are going to have multiple mid/late 30 year olds on significant deals.

 

[Xanadude]

We are going to have a lot of that, Army is making a 4ish year bet. Schenn, Faulk, Krug, etc. will all have pretty bad contracts at the end, and who knows which other ~30 year old player will get a 7+ year deal. Does Schwartz get added, does ROR/Tarasenko get an extension to their late 30s, does Parayko, do we bring another new guy in? We are going to have multiple mid/late 30 year olds on significant deals.

I've got to guess that, as guys like Bozak, Steen, Gunny etc. retire or have their deals expire, DA will do his damndest to keep those ^ guys around through this 3-5 year window with the cap they leave. Though if Thomas becomes a legit 1c we may not resign ROR (ugh), I can't imagine we have any inkling of a Schwartz replacement in the pipeline and you wouldn't let Petro go to let Parayko go too.

But then again, I would have thrown the money truck at Petro the day after the cup parade. I've got no clue what's going on at Blues HQ behind the scenes with this group, but I'm fairly certain our wagons are hitched to this roster and the prospects coming up in it. We're probably rebuilding by 2025, but hopefully have another parade before then. Maybe.

 

[BlueMed]

I don't like the overall organizational decision to move on from Petro and tie our wagon to both Krug and Faulk. In a vacuum, Krug's contract isn't a bad one but I think it is baffling poor roster construction to add a small, largely PP specialist to a team that needs defensive strength and already has 3 players who can QB a PP at least adequately. I genuinely don't know who kills penalties on this team whenever any D besides Dunn/Krug take a penalty and the entire philosophy of going cheap in net with a positionally sound, average NHL starter makes less and less sense the worse you are defensively. I think the blue line is noticeably worse than it was 13 months ago and we don't have the flexibility to improve it over the next 4 years unless we can get out of Faulk's contract.

I'm not necessarily directing this at you, but it's hilarious that the same people complaining about Krug being a small PP specialist were raving about Scott Perunovich, a 5'9 LHD who thrives on the PP.