training camp 2023

[Majorityof1]

Lots of offensive zone starts doesn't equal most sheltered. You can get all the o-zone starts in the world, but if MacKinnon is on the dot and wins the faceoff, what good was it? And we were 24th in the league in faceoffs last season for reference.

He's getting too many minutes overall, but also too much exposure to opponents' top 6 players because he's mostly playing with Faulk. So yeah, he's not great, but he's going to look even worse with how we utilize him. We don't have much of a choice though, unless one of our young guys steps up big time. Maybe Scandella bounces back and we can run Leddy-Parayko, Scandella-Faulk, that would bump Krug down to the 3rd pairing so he's getting actual sheltered minutes against teams' bottom 6 for 12-15 minutes a game.

But even if we were able to give him the 3rd pairing usage we should be, he's being paid too much. This is why I think even those who give Krug some slack for looking terrible still believe he should be traded ASAP, me included. We're all in agreement that he needs to go.

Parayko and Leddy were league leaders in toughest quality of comp. Krug was not out there against MacKinnon.

 

[BlueDream]

ever hear the term you gotta put your players in a situation to succeed? Well we're not doing that for Krug. Not by choice but be desperate need. That does not mean he's not a good player at what he is good at.

This is such a weak excuse.

He’s not living up to the contract we gave him. We tried him on the 3rd pairing some last season and he was still a defensive liability. There’s not a whole lot else we can do, he needs to either improve a lot or accept a trade. Pretty simple.

 

[HighNote]

Parayko and Leddy were league leaders in toughest quality of comp. Krug was not out there against MacKinnon.

That's just an example, but you get the point. In reality the player would be Rantanen.

Even disregarding away games where we might not have a choice as to who's out there against Krug, there are teams that can put high end talent on their 2nd line and take major advantage of a player like Krug even if we have last change, so if Parayko is out there against MacKinnon, there's still Rantanen. Even with McDavid covered, there's Draisaitl. Robertson, there's also Seguin. Marchessault, you got Stephenson. Those are just some Western conference examples. Those are all 1st line players that you do not want Krug seeing extended time against, yet he did, partly because he's on the 2nd pairing and partly because he's getting too many minutes altogether.

If we want to actually shelter Krug, then we must have someone else with Faulk so that Krug can be on the 3rd pairing getting less minutes and against lesser competition where he can actually be useful. It's not an ideal situation all around, which again is why he needs to be traded.

 

[Majorityof1]

That's just an example, but you get the point. In reality the player would be Rantanen.

Even disregarding away games where we might not have a choice as to who's out there against Krug, there are teams that can put high end talent on their 2nd line and take major advantage of a player like Krug even if we have last change, so if Parayko is out there against MacKinnon, there's still Rantanen. Even with McDavid covered, there's Draisaitl. Robertson, there's also Seguin. Marchessault, you got Stephenson. Those are just some Western conference examples. Those are all 1st line players that you do not want Krug seeing extended time against, yet he did, partly because he's on the 2nd pairing and partly because he's getting too many minutes altogether.

If we want to actually shelter Krug, then we must have someone else with Faulk so that Krug can be on the 3rd pairing getting less minutes and against lesser competition where he can actually be usueful. It's not an ideal situation all around, which again is why he needs to be traded.

I don't feel like looking up the charts because they were from some stat guys twitter but Krug was sheltered more than our 3rd pair. When we needed Faulk out there against Rantanen for example in a defensive situation and we had the opportunity, we ran Faulk and Mikkola, or Scandella or Rosen. Faulk was only with Krug for roughly half his TOI. Some of that was Krug injured, but some was them shifting a 3rd pair guy up, or Leddy down to not have Krug out there in a bad situation. As evidence, Krug had 73.4% ozone start and Faulk was at 54.61%. That is a lot of defensive starts Faulk took without Krug, and even though I don't have the stats in hand, you can be sure there were a lot of Faulk starts against better comp where Krug wasn't there as well.

Krug was sheltered more than our 3rd pair. In away games where we had no choice, he wasn't. But that wasnot our choice and a better top 4 option wouldn't change that. It is nearly impossible for us to shelter Krug more than we did last year.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

I'd rather see an extended run of games for Perunovich. This is a season where I'm fine if playing him costs us some standings points. I know that Rosen isn't in this team's long term future. I want to see Perunovich given a real chance to play his way out of the NHL before I give up on him completely.

I’m all for it too. I would like to be in the race for Dickinson, Silayev, and Levshunov. That would definitely get us there. If he has a good season as a power play specialist, then I would trade him at the deadline for any pick that I could possibly get.

 

[Xerloris]

This is such a weak excuse.

He’s not living up to the contract we gave him. We tried him on the 3rd pairing some last season and he was still a defensive liability. There’s not a whole lot else we can do, he needs to either improve a lot or accept a trade. Pretty simple.

I never said he was worth his contract. I'm saying he's not a shitty player, we're just not using him to his strengths. We're putting him into situations that we know he is not suited for.

 

[Celtic Note]

I never said he was worth his contract. I'm saying he's not a shitty player, we're just not using him to his strengths. We're putting him into situations that we know he is not suited for.

So, we should only play him on the PP? Dress 7D? I am trying to figure out how we use his strengths and limit his weaknesses more than we already do and those suggestions are all I can think of to do so.

 

[HighNote]

So, we should only play him on the PP? Dress 7D? I am trying to figure out how we use his strengths and limit his weaknesses more than we already do and those suggestions are all I can think of to do so.

3rd pairing and PP minutes. Not 22 minutes and 35 seconds.

 

[Majorityof1]

3rd pairing and PP minutes. Not 22 minutes and 35 seconds a game.

His 5v5 minutes were fairly close to 3rd pairing last year. He got 15:04 5v5 per game last year. Our top 4 D got 18+ 5v5. Krug wasn't close to that. He was a lot closer to the other D. Scandella got 14:56 and Mikkola got 14:25. Rosen was 14:14. Krug got less than a minute more than a guy who started the year in the AHL. He might have gotten a little more than 3rd pairing minutes, but it was a lot less than top 4. Playing him a minute less a game wouldn't have mattered much. His stats would have been awful.

 

[HighNote]

His 5v5 minutes were fairly close to 3rd pairing last year. He got 15:04 5v5 per game last year. Our top 4 D got 18+ 5v5. Krug wasn't close to that. He was a lot closer to the other D. Scandella got 14:56 and Mikkola got 14:25. Rosen was 14:14. Krug got less than a minute more than a guy who started the year in the AHL. He might have gotten a little more than 3rd pairing minutes, but it was a lot less than top 4. Playing him a minute less a game wouldn't have mattered much. His stats would have been awful.

If we can get that down to 12-13 that would be ideal. Then you give him powerplay time and you can move him up with Faulk late in games where we're trailing and tell those guys to play aggressive. That way he'd be fresh when his offense is needed most or for 3 on 3.

And you're right, playing him less would not have mattered last season. Everyone's stats were awful.