Mikkola is 25 and hasn’t earned a full time spot. Would be shocking if he was picked over Dunn.
Last edited:
2021 Expansion Draft Discussion
- Thread starter Zezel’s Pretzels
- Start date
It's difficult to draw a comparison to Tuch, Karlsson and Theodore, who were all highly rated when they went to Vegas. The only reason they ended up there is that their original teams made stupid trades to protect their established players (or paying VGK to take a bad contract).
While I see the argument that the experience of Dunn puts him closer to his ceiling, they are still the same age and there is a reason Dunn was on the team and Mikkola wasn't for most of that. The fact Dunn has more game time means that the Blues have a better understanding in what we have with him moving forward, but I wouldn't apply that to others teams. Vince Dunn isn't far away from an Ian Cole type situation, where our roster just isn't a good spot for him to grow into a bigger role. We even seen that with Kris Russell, who moved from our third pairing into a very good second pairing guy in Calgary.
Unless we do something unexpected with our protection spots, I find it difficult to see Seattle taking anyone other than Dunn.
depends on what Seattle needs. what if amongst the 9 other defenders they've chosen they accumulated many more shaky/offensive types, but no reliable defenders or someone they can project to play 20 hard minutes with PK time? Dunn is more skilled for sure, but a depth player nonetheless.
I'd be surprised if they struggled to find defense first guys. Another factor here is that the looming expansion draft is deflating the trade value of defensemen, as they'd require one of three protection spots. It's why we'd never get a first for Dunn at this point, but there is a decent chance Seattle could flip him for that immediately after.
But, it does depend on what some other teams lists look like and the short term plans of Seattle.
Mikkola could very well find himself filling the Bouwmeester role; contributing nothing offensively, but eating hard minutes successfully. JBouw was no world-beater; and Mikkola has a ways to go before being compared to a member of the Triple Gold club, but I'd take a guy in that mold in an expansion draft for sure. Mattias Ekholm wasn't Mattias Ekholm until he was. You can't teach size and skating that Mikkola has. You can teach good habits and develop offensive skills, to an extent.
LGB
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2019
- 2,113
- 2,137
I think I'd actually protect Perron instead of Sundqvist. Even though he's much older and only has the one year under contract left he's too important to the team. Also given his past free agency decisions I'm sure we'd be able to re-sign him for a reasonable price.
It’s not that Perron will decline so rapidly (though he could, and probably won’t put up the same number away from ROR). The expansion team needs assets out of their draft. Taking a guy who is UFA in one year is foolish. Are they trying to win the Cup in year one? (That question only looks funny because of the ridiculous Vegas experience.) They should be building for a 3-4 year ramp up. Perron could jettison in 1 year, and if they could sign him as UFA they could also do that in 1 year for free.
I would definitely protect Sundqvist over Perron. Ideally I’d like to protect both.
I would definitely protect Sundqvist over Perron. Ideally I’d like to protect both.
Thallis
No half measures
As much as we like Sundqvist, there's not that much value as an asset around the league for a 3rd/4th line utility player like him. Guys like him are frequently available in free agency or are promoted from within. Perron's value as a rental at the deadline would be higher than Sundqvist's as a long term asset. The only area we'd miss Sundqvist in is on the PK, but guys that can fill that role are fairly easy to acquire on the cheap. Honestly this Sundqvist talk is reminding me a lot of how we talked about Sobotka. He was a fine player, but ultimate not a huge factor when we lost him.
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Blues are going to end up sending a pick and/or prospect to Seattle to pick a player we want them to like the Jets or Panthers did for the Vegas draft.
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,460
- 6,114
I really hope we don't pay to protect anyone. I'd rather we hoard picks and just let Seattle pick a player off our roster. I feel like we need to replenish our prospect pool and I want all our picks put towards accomplishing that.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,858
- 8,192
If we leave Perron or Sunny unprotected and we send them Dunn as a reward for taking Sanford (or vice versa) I would consider that a very good outcome.
Neither of those trades were good.
The Jets gave up the Nick Suzuki (13th) pick & a 3rd for the Vesalainen (24th) pick, so that Vegas promised to take Thorburn. It's not like Winnipeg had anything particularly great exposed anyway, basically paying that price to protect Marko Daňo.
The Panthers trade was a complete mess because they had an idiot GM. Vegas got a 55+ point player for promising to take a 55+ point player in the expansion draft.
Unless the asset cost is a lot more modest than that, there isn't any need to consider a trade. Our cap situation isn't bad and there isn't a lot of teams that can overpay third liners in FA, we'll be an attractive landing spot for a lot of players if we've got to replace someone.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,118
- 13,034
The answer to your question is that they will almost certainly be looking to build a contender in year 1. The Vegas expansion demonstrably proved that these expansion rules can make Seattle a contender in year 1. Given that history, it is very likely that Seattle will in fact be trying to build a contender out of the gate, especially since they are in a more competitive sports market than Vegas was. Being good right away will be extremely beneficial from a business standpoint. And since every team is bleeding money this year, there will probably be even more "really good, but overpriced" players exposed as teams want to use expansion to shed dollars. It is highly likely Seattle will be trying to build as good a team as possible for year 1.
But even if they take a long term view, Perron is still the smartest asset to take. They would easily get a 1st + a good prospect for Perron by trading him and retaining 50% of his salary. Perron has scored 187 points in 214 regular season games since he was selected by Vegas in 2017. That's a 71 point pace over 3+ seasons and is 59th in the league for that stretch. He has been to the Cup final in 2 of the last 3 years and won a Cup with us. 34 points in 50 playoff games over that stretch (55 point pace). He's a top-line caliber forward and he plays like a pest in the playoffs. At 50% retention, his cap hit for the receiving team would be just $2M with $1.7M of real dollars owed. Most the league will be in a cap squeeze next season and teams that want to add for a run will have a tough time making money work. Seattle would get an absurd trade package for him from a contender looking to bolster the offense. His trade value as a 1 year rental (post expansion draft) is worth substantially than whatever else might be available from our roster.
Whether they would want to keep him as a 1 year option, keep him and re-sign him or flip him for assets, Perron would be the clear choice for Seattle over guys like Barby, Sunny, Dunn, etc.
I'd be shocked if we expose Perron. Berube has him glued to our captain, he's scored at a consistent 65-75 point pace in the regular season in that role, and he has 25 points in 35 playoff games in that role. He clearly loves it here, he took a hefty discount to come here and it seems reasonable to think that he will be re-signed for 1-2 years at a fair AAV when the current contract expires. I don't think we are going to prioritize youth/depth over a clear cut top line forward just because he is 33.
Reality Czech
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 4,921
- 7,853
Didn't Vegas take Perron with one year left on his deal? I don't want to lose Perry even if it would be amusing to see Perron sign as a UFA again after one year in Seattle. He's too important to the team. So is Sundqvist.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,118
- 13,034
I've made the "it is too early to try and predict the expansion draft now" comment a few times and I still think there is too much up in the air. I'm not sure that we can afford to keep ROR, Tarasenko, Schenn, Schwartz, Perron, Krug, Faulk, Parayko, and Binner under a salary cap that is going to be flat again. Thomas and Kyrou are both due raises this summer and while they don't have arbitration leverage, we will need to give them a decent bump unless we want to give them a big raise the following summer. The same summer Parayko will be due a raise.
My concern is that Binner is playing himself out of our cap structure. He's been great this year and has been a top 10 starter by any metric you want to look at. He was 7th in Vezina voting before his playoff disaster last year and will probably finish higher this season if he keeps up his play. He's going to be a 28 year old UFA and if I were in his shoes it would take at least $35M to think about not testing that market. If we aren't willing to meet his contract demands then we probably don't need to shed any other salary. But if we pay him anything near market value then we probably need to shed a medium-to-large contract over the next 2 years. The expansion draft provides an opportunity to do that, which greatly changes the math about who to protect.
My concern is that Binner is playing himself out of our cap structure. He's been great this year and has been a top 10 starter by any metric you want to look at. He was 7th in Vezina voting before his playoff disaster last year and will probably finish higher this season if he keeps up his play. He's going to be a 28 year old UFA and if I were in his shoes it would take at least $35M to think about not testing that market. If we aren't willing to meet his contract demands then we probably don't need to shed any other salary. But if we pay him anything near market value then we probably need to shed a medium-to-large contract over the next 2 years. The expansion draft provides an opportunity to do that, which greatly changes the math about who to protect.
Zezel’s Pretzels
Registered User
- May 25, 2019
- 709
- 1,088
Thallis
No half measures
On what basis? Sundqvist has had similar point production, usage, and defensive impact as Sobotka before he went to the KHL. They play a different style because Sunqvist is a bigger player, but in terms of results they're absolutely similar, You could actually argue that Sobotka was a better player in that time frame.
Reality Czech
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 4,921
- 7,853
I'm a big fan of both players, and I agree they are pretty comparable. Obviously Sunny is bigger but they played similar styles and roles (top PK unit and defensive assignments, filling in up and down the lineup). Sundqvist is a better goal scorer and is more effective on the rush, while Sobotka got mostly assists and was better on the cycle, but if we're talking value and results I'd say they are quite similar. Sobotka was close to a .5 PPG player for a few years and absolutely would have been protected if there had been an expansion draft during his "peak" years here (and of course if he hadn't bolted to the KHL).
- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,858
- 8,192
I think last night's game is a pretty good example of why they will likely protect Perron in the expansion draft even if it means losing Sunny. There have been plenty of times over the course of the last 3 seasons where he has been our best offensive weapon and, frankly, our best player. He's showing few signs of regression despite his age, and I fully expect him to be extended beyond his current deal.
He's leading the team in scoring right now, and while that may not last through the end of the season I would find it hard to believe that any other team in the league is considering exposing their current scoring leader to the expansion draft in a few months.
He's leading the team in scoring right now, and while that may not last through the end of the season I would find it hard to believe that any other team in the league is considering exposing their current scoring leader to the expansion draft in a few months.
The Sunqvist/Sobotka comparison feels accurate. A guy who is useful and you like to have on the team, but at the end of the day is expendable and can be internally replaced pretty easily. I say as a fan of both players
I've become persuaded the Blues should protect Perron over Sundqvist. If I'm understanding the situation correctly, the Blues can leave Schwartz unprotected if he's not re-signed yet (as an UFA) and have enough slots to protect both Perron and Sundqvist. However the downside is that it takes Schwartz to the open market. I believe a "handshake" deal is against the spirit of the rules, and I thought I'd read something that discouraged doing that, but maybe its just the exposure to the market. There's no guarantee the player doesn't get a more attractive offer.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,858
- 8,192
I'm inclined to agree. Further, I think that with an opportunity to select Dunn, Sanford or Sundqvist from our roster that the preference would likely be in that order. I just think the higher ceiling of the other two will be more attractive than Sunny's floor.
joe galiba
Registered User
- Apr 16, 2020
- 1,874
- 2,083
I also don't think you can overlook the absolute love for playing hockey that Perron brings
he works on the ice, but also gives off a "hey we're playing hockey, this is FUN" vibe that has to be infectious
Hell, it infects me watching from my couch
when he antagonized Burns into that penalty, you can just see how he loves that
he works on the ice, but also gives off a "hey we're playing hockey, this is FUN" vibe that has to be infectious
Hell, it infects me watching from my couch
when he antagonized Burns into that penalty, you can just see how he loves that
