2021-2022 S Blues Multi Purpose Thread Part 2

[Davimir Tarablad]

For reference in this playoffs
With Krug, 2 games, 3/11 (Krug left game 3 vs MIN before we had a single PP)
With Perunovich, 7 games, 8/20
Without both 1/8 (1/3 in game 3 vs MIN, 0/5 in games 5 and 6 vs COL)

 

[Brian39]

We'll disagree. I'm saying he doesn't have the speed to deal with a forecheck, Saying you'd take Krug over Paryako "and it isn't particularly close" is something I'm ok disagreeing about.

If you fully misstate people's arguments, then it is easy to call them dumb. At no point did I say I would take Krug over Parayko and the portion you quoted wasn't even remotely related to comparing the overall games of players.

Pat Maroon is better at scoring goals than Andrei Vasilevksi and it isn't particularly close. Interpreting that sentence as someone saying "I'd take Maroon over Vasilevski and it isn't particularly close" would either be incredibly stupid or incredibly disingenuous.

You're the one who is hyper-focused on one specific element to determine what players should be moved (dealing with a speedy forecheck). You are then using that team-need as a justification for moving Krug even though he is absolutely the best player on our roster at that specific element.

Krug is dramatically better than Parayko at evading a forecheck and clearing the zone. That doesn't make him a better player. That doesn't mean I would take Krug over Parayko. Parayko does so many other things better than Krug that make him a more valuable player.

 

[PocketNines]

That’s where we can agree to disagree. I think not having Krug or Perunovich running the PP would hurt and not having Krug contribute with passing the puck out of the zone on simple plays is something I think that was pretty clearly missed vs Colorado when Mikkola was playing hot potato with the puck on a forecheck.

One of the attributes of this top pairing all situations left defenseman would be PP ability. The Blues would have a very strong two-unit power play with the likes of that player, Leddy and Faulk available to man the point.

btw I have repeatedly acknowledged the difficult spot Armstrong is in with Krug in terms of ability to trade him, and I do this for purposes of still being able to discuss what the ideal defense looks like. Having to continually assert this awareness throughout every post as it's discussed isn't workable.

It's a difference of philosophy. At this point of the very early offseason, I'd rather build the ideal defense and begin breaking down barriers to making it happen than accept barriers and do tweaks. Right now everything is fresh in the group's minds.

If you fully misstate people's arguments, then it is easy to call them dumb. At no point did I say I would take Krug over Parayko and the portion you quoted wasn't even remotely related to comparing the overall games of players.

Pat Maroon is better at scoring goals than Andrei Vasilevksi and it isn't particularly close. Interpreting that sentence as someone saying "I'd take Maroon over Vasilevski and it isn't particularly close" would either be incredibly stupid or incredibly disingenuous.

You're the one who is hyper-focused on one specific element to determine what players should be moved (dealing with a speedy forecheck). You are then using that team-need as a justification for moving Krug even though he is absolutely the best player on our roster at that specific element.

Krug is dramatically better than Parayko at evading a forecheck and clearing the zone. That doesn't make him a better player. That doesn't mean I would take Krug over Parayko. Parayko does so many other things better than Krug that make him a more valuable player.

? I didn't call you dumb???

You said "Krug handles an aggressive forecheck and clears the zone better than every other D man on our roster and it isn't particularly close." I just don't agree. It's fine. Nobody called you dumb.

 

[Brian39]

? I didn't call you dumb???

You said "Krug handles an aggressive forecheck and clears the zone better than every other D man on our roster and it isn't particularly close." I just don't agree. It's fine. Nobody called you dumb.

My use of the word "them" was meant to refer to "the arguments" not "the person making the argument."

Lack of clarity on my end. Also, English is a silly and confusing language.

 

[Louie the Blue]

My use of the word "them" was meant to refer to "the arguments" not "the person making the argument."

Lack of clarity on my end. Also, English is a silly and confusing language.

I was in Montreal over the weekend and have no clue how French works.

 

[PocketNines]

My use of the word "them" was meant to refer to "the arguments" not "the person making the argument."

Lack of clarity on my end. Also, English is a silly and confusing language.

No worries wasn't trying to misstate your argument. My orientation is to take the best argument someone has and defeat it with a superior argument. Otherwise it's cheating

 

[MissouriMook]

Krug handles an aggressive forecheck and clears the zone better than every other D man on our roster and it isn't particularly close. If improving our ability to evade a speedy forecheck and clear the zone is the recipe for defeating Colorado, then Krug should be our least expendable blueliner.

Krug struggles to defend when the puck is on the other team's stick. He gets outmuscled when the race is a tie. He absolutely does not struggle beating forecheckers to contested pucks and he absolutely doesn't struggle to either skate or pass the puck out of danger when he wins those races. That is literally his best asset in our half of the ice. I vehemently disagree that he doesn't have the speed to deal with a forecheck.

I think your comments here do a really good job of pointing out the fallacy that the only way to defend speed is with speed. It helps, but a fast player coming into your zone that doesn't have the puck and can't get it back has been neutered pretty well no matter how you did it.

 

[joe galiba]

For reference in this playoffs
With Krug, 2 games, 3/11 (Krug left game 3 vs MIN before we had a single PP)
With Perunovich, 7 games, 8/20
Without both 1/8 (1/3 in game 3 vs MIN, 0/5 in games 5 and 6 vs COL)

This matches my eye test

I was in Montreal over the weekend and have no clue how French works.

it is simple, the French don't work, they do holidays

 

[simon IC]

I don’t understand why citing Krug’s speed has to do with the series. He didn’t play at all vs Colorado this postseason and the entire defense was a flaming mess last season due to the injuries and personnel used. You can cite that as not being an excuse, but when you’re literally playing half of a defense that shouldn’t be playing top 6 minutes in a PO series that’s an issue.

My argument is Barbashev isn’t fast enough to compete with Colorado’s forwards and is the path of least resistance to go about upgrading the roster while Krug’s passing was sorely missed vs Colorado and dressing 7D to shelter Perunovich to QB a PP isn’t sustainable or viable long-term.

The forwards are much slower than Colorado’s and I’d argue Kyrou and Thomas are on par with Colorado’s in terms of speed. That includes ROR, who had a great series, Perron, Buchnevich, Schenn, Tarasenko, Barbashev, and Saad.

Another top 4 D is necessary to cover for Krug’s shortcomings, but to downplay his contributions on offense and act as if Perunovich can easily replicate his play is not an accurate representation of Krug’s ability as @Brian39 posted earlier.

Playing Mikkola in top 4 minutes, while also relying on Rosen, is a reason why the Blues lost even though I thought they played OK given the circumstances. Krug being available would have limited turnovers in the dzone on passes. He would have also been faster than either Mikkola or Rosen.

I don’t think even with Binnington, Scandella, and Krug being healthy they would’ve won the series due to how well the Avalanche possessed the puck and their second line and third lines dominating the Blues.

Sorry to nit-pick, but Krug is not faster than Mikkola.

 

[BlueMed]

Focusing on moving Krug is also a distraction because it isn’t happening and leaves the Blues with another hole on defense.

Perunovich isn’t the caliber of player Krug is (yet) and can’t directly replicate his production on offense or defense.

My argument is keeping Leddy is fine and all, but does nothing with regards to moving the needle on defense because I think the Blues need someone better as long as Krug is penciled in top 4 (because he isn’t going anywhere and should be deployed in the top 4 as long as he’s here).

How I perceive your argument is to move on from Krug, keep Leddy, add another top 4 D, and pencil Perunovich in for bottom pairing today. I find it incredibly unlikely that that happens given Krug’s contract, production, and Perunovich’s performance.

The best compromise is acquiring someone better than Leddy while still playing Krug and also possibly acquiring a bottom pairing D that is better than either Scandella or Bortuzzo. The only realistic way I see to get that done is to move Barbashev, Tarasenko, and Scandella.

Imagine being able to find a way to keep Leddy and Krug and somehow adding a better LD than both on the left side. That defense would be sick.

There is no indication that Krug has to stay in the top 4. When Krug came back from his injury, he was penciled into the bottom pairing with Bortuzzo and can continue to stay there. That's actually where he played when he stepped into the NHL. That would allow the Blues to keep Leddy with Faulk and get someone like Chychrun and Sanheim to play with Parayko.

 

[WeWentBlues]

Perron just turned 34 so performance bonuses aren't an option.

Thinking outside the box, wonder if Armstrong wouldn't try to offer a longer term contract at a lower AAV and front load it to the extent that the current CBA allows. Also have an unspoken agreement that Perron can't retire for the duration of the term to avoid cap recapture penalties.

Let's say Perron wants 5M AAV for 3 years. Blues offer 3M AAV over 5 years.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Rumors swirling that Gurianov from Dallas may not be given a QO. He's a player that would be a nice backup plan

 

[Xerloris]

Perron just turned 34 so performance bonuses aren't an option.

Thinking outside the box, wonder if Armstrong wouldn't try to offer a longer term contract at a lower AAV and front load it to the extent that the current CBA allows. Also have an unspoken agreement that Perron can't retire for the duration of the term to avoid cap recapture penalties.

Let's say Perron wants 5M AAV for 3 years. Blues offer 3M AAV over 5 years.

If we get that deal done before he turns 35 I'm all for it.

 

[mk80]

Rumors swirling that Gurianov from Dallas may not be given a QO. He's a player that would be a nice backup plan

What are the reasons they don't want to qualify him?

 

[Linkens Mastery]

What are the reasons they don't want to qualify him?

Low cap space and the Arbitration Walk Away number is a little over 4.5mil so if any player is awarded 4.5mil or under the team can't walk away from the deal.

Other players in this predicament are. Bear(Car), Kase(Tor), Kapanen(Pit), Wood, and Zacha(NJ)

Edit: and Strome from Chi

 

[Blueston]

If we end up being only Western conference team to win game against Avs does it change how we feel about where we stand as team?

 

[Linkens Mastery]

If we end up being only Western conference team to win game against Avs does it change how we feel about where we stand as team?

I mean it would mean we are the second best Western Team.

 

[illininer]

If we end up being only Western conference team to win game against Avs does it change how we feel about where we stand as team?

Honestly, I thought Avs, Blues, and Wild were the best 3 teams in the West by the end of the regular season. Just a shame they had to knock each other out early.

 

[BlueMed]

If we end up being only Western conference team to win game against Avs does it change how we feel about where we stand as team?

Even better considering that we leading 1-0 in game 3 and outscoring them 7-4 in a 1-1 series before Kadri decided to Kadri.

 

[BlueDream]

I mean it would mean we are the second best Western Team.

I already think this is true. We would beat Edmonton and we would be in the 3rd round if we played LA and Calgary in the first 2 rounds.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I already think this is true. We would beat Edmonton and we would be in the 3rd round if we played LA and Calgary in the first 2 rounds.

I completely agree. The fact that We had to face Minny and Colorado the first two rounds is insane. Shouldn't have seen Minny until at least round two and Colorado in the WCF.

 

[Blueston]

I completely agree. The fact that We had to face Minny and Colorado the first two rounds is insane. Shouldn't have seen Minny until at least round two and Colorado in the WCF.

We had 4th best record in conference. Even if they seeded 1-8 would have had to face Avs second round.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

We had 4th best record in conference. Even if they seeded 1-8 would have had to face Avs second round.

Not necessarily. Wild-Kings could have ended with Kings winning then we'd be going against Calgary.

 

[Blueston]

Not necessarily. Wild-Kings could have ended with Kings winning then we'd be going against Calgary.

If they reseeded. If straight brackets we’d face Avs.

 

[Reality Czech]

My ideal scenario is to send Tank to NJ for Severenson and futures. That upgrades 3rd pairing and creates cap space to add someone like Provorov or Chycrun (dealing Barbie and Scandella and futures) and retain Leddy on team-friendly deal (and Perron of course). Would be a bit weaker up front but our D would stack up with anyone 1-6.

Adding Severson, Leddy AND Provorov/Chychrun? I'd say that's a bit ambitious to say the least.