2021 Expansion Draft Discussion

[Louie the Blue]

You don't know that. I would say that the Kracken, may have taken Krug. They seem to have made the back end a priority while they seemed to have ignored the forwards - which is crazy to me. They could have had a solid roster.

There are more then a few fans here pissing and moaning about losing Dunn would have been doing the exact same thing had we lost Tarasenko.

I would’ve been fine losing Tarasenko. Issue I have is Dunn was lost when he didn’t have to be and instead of forcing Seattle to take Tarasenko or a lesser player, Dunn was lost.

 

[Ranksu]

You don't know that. I would say that the Kracken, may have taken Krug. They seem to have made the back end a priority while they seemed to have ignored the forwards - which is crazy to me. They could have had a solid roster.

There are more then a few fans here pissing and moaning about losing Dunn would have been doing the exact same thing had we lost Tarasenko.

Who is moaning?

 

[Blueston]

That isn’t the point. It’s asset management.

It’s extremely reasonable to suggest that Seattle avoids Krug given the roster outlook and the choices we know they’ve made.

Krug vs Tarasenko, well reports were that they had interest in taking Tarasenko and flipping him. That works in the Blues favor because they don’t want him in the organization either way. But Seattle didn’t have the make this choice since selecting Dunn over Tarasenko is a no brainer.

Even if they choose to stray away from Tarasenko and take one of the Blues collection of mediocre at best depth forwards that player can be easily replaced via UFA and didn’t have much value as an asset anyways.

Graves just got a 2nd + NHL roster player with some upside, Leddy just got a 2nd

A 2nd is better than nothing and it’s not like a player like Sanford generates that kind of return.

Now we lost a decent trade chip, still have to move Tarasenko out and gained no cap space whatsoever.

Those guys are much better than Dunn.

 

[Blueston]

I would’ve been fine losing Tarasenko. Issue I have is Dunn was lost when he didn’t have to be and instead of forcing Seattle to take Tarasenko or a lesser player, Dunn was lost.

Or put another way we lost Dunn instead of a player who is in our plans. We have been shopping him for at least a year with no takers.

 

[MissouriMook]

I would’ve been fine losing Tarasenko. Issue I have is Dunn was lost when he didn’t have to be and instead of forcing Seattle to take Tarasenko or a lesser player, Dunn was lost.

How do you force Seattle to take Tarasenko or a lesser player? If you protect Dunn, you're leaving one of Parayko, Faulk or Krug exposed and (contrary to the opinions of some people on this board) that was never going to happen. The only other alternative is to go 8-1 instead of 7-3-1. If we assume that ROR, Thomas and Kyrou are safe, that means you're protecting one of Schenn, Perron, Sundqvist and Barbashev and leaving the other three exposed. I would rather have each one of those four compared to Dunn. Agree to disagree.

Maybe you decide that you're OK losing Barby but not the other three. How are you protecting Dunn and not losing Schenn, Perron or Sunny without giving Seattle something to take Barby? I just see way too much wishcasting in these scenarios where we force Seattle's hand to do what we want without it costing us something we don't want to give up in the first place. Krug and Faulk were never going to be exposed. Seattle was never taking Sanford even if we gave them Blais like Florida did with Smith and Marchessault four years ago.

 

[Novacain]

How do you force Seattle to take Tarasenko or a lesser player? If you protect Dunn, you're leaving one of Parayko, Faulk or Krug exposed and (contrary to the opinions of some people on this board) that was never going to happen. The only other alternative is to go 8-1 instead of 7-3-1. If we assume that ROR, Thomas and Kyrou are safe, that means you're protecting one of Schenn, Perron, Sundqvist and Barbashev and leaving the other three exposed. I would rather have each one of those four compared to Dunn. Agree to disagree.

Maybe you decide that you're OK losing Barby but not the other three. How are you protecting Dunn and not losing Schenn, Perron or Sunny without giving Seattle something to take Barby? I just see way too much wishcasting in these scenarios where we force Seattle's hand to do what we want without it costing us something we don't want to give up in the first place. Krug and Faulk were never going to be exposed. Seattle was never taking Sanford even if we gave them Blais like Florida did with Smith and Marchessault four years ago.

Trade Dunn, by far the most valuable piece you are exposing, before the expansion draft for an asset, then leave Tarasenko open or just put up Barbie in his place. Other teams traded solid players we couldn’t protect for assets before they were taken: why didn’t we?

 

[MissouriMook]

Trade Dunn, by far the most valuable piece you are exposing, before the expansion draft for an asset, then leave Tarasenko open or just put up Barbie in his place. Other teams traded solid players we couldn’t protect for assets before they were taken: why didn’t we?

You ask why we didn't trade Dunn without having enough information to form a conclusion as to why we didn't. This is not a discussion, it's an argument. And an unproductive one at that. We were always going to lose someone we didn't want to lose. Take your lumps and move on.

 

[parliamentlite]

Sure seems like Seattle is valuing the preservation of cap space with their picks. I assume they are viewing the flat cap over the next few years as an opportunity to pick up some excellent UFAs that wouldn't normally be available.

They must feel like they have a chance with Hamilton, Hall, and Landeskog this offseason.

 

[Novacain]

You ask why we didn't trade Dunn without having enough information to form a conclusion as to why we didn't. This is not a discussion, it's an argument. And an unproductive one at that. We were always going to lose someone we didn't want to lose. Take your lumps and move on.

Ah, the classic “I don’t have a counter point so I’m just gonna end the discussion and say it’s pointless” play. Internet vet I see.

I would have had zero problem losing Barbashev, Blais, Sanford, or whoever else we had exposed. Dunn was the only one that was above a replacement level player out of that bunch. The gap in value between him and those guys is pretty damned big. Any one of them can be replaced by random AHL call up or 1.25 million dollar free agent. Dunn can’t. If you couldn’t keep him, you needed to get damned something out of him with that big of a drop off.

 

[MissouriMook]

Ah, the classic “I don’t have a counter point so I’m just gonna end the discussion and say it’s pointless” play. Internet vet I see.

Unnecessary and reflexive equal to your accusation. Unhelpful. You've done exactly what you've accused me of doing while completely ignoring the idea that you can't have an informed opinion of why we didn't trade Dunn (no one can) because you don't know what (if anything) was being offered. The most likely answer, but still 100% speculative, is that no one wanted him before the draft because they couldn't protect him any easier than we could so no one was offering anything of value for him. Better to lose him for nothing than to lose something else we valued more.

I would have had zero problem losing Barbashev, Blais, Sanford, or whoever else we had exposed. Dunn was the only one that was above a replacement level player out of that bunch. The gap in value between him and those guys is pretty damned big. Any one of them can be replaced by random AHL call up or 1.25 million dollar free agent. Dunn can’t. If you couldn’t keep him, you needed to get damned something out of him with that big of a drop off.

Again, you're ignoring the steps you would have to go through to protect Dunn, which involved exposing one of the other three defensemen we protected (never going to happen) or going 8-1 and losing one of Schenn, Perron or Sunny. It's just a bullshit argument to suggest that we missed an easy path to save Dunn if that's who Seattle really wanted.

 

[Louie the Blue]

How do you force Seattle to take Tarasenko or a lesser player? If you protect Dunn, you're leaving one of Parayko, Faulk or Krug exposed and (contrary to the opinions of some people on this board) that was never going to happen. The only other alternative is to go 8-1 instead of 7-3-1. If we assume that ROR, Thomas and Kyrou are safe, that means you're protecting one of Schenn, Perron, Sundqvist and Barbashev and leaving the other three exposed. I would rather have each one of those four compared to Dunn. Agree to disagree.

Maybe you decide that you're OK losing Barby but not the other three. How are you protecting Dunn and not losing Schenn, Perron or Sunny without giving Seattle something to take Barby? I just see way too much wishcasting in these scenarios where we force Seattle's hand to do what we want without it costing us something we don't want to give up in the first place. Krug and Faulk were never going to be exposed. Seattle was never taking Sanford even if we gave them Blais like Florida did with Smith and Marchessault four years ago.

I would be completely fine with exposing Sundqvist and Barbashev over Dunn and I like both of them.

Tarasenko has more value than either of those 2. If the Blues lost either Sundqvist or Barbashev, they lose a bottom 6 player(one of which is recovering from injury) while keeping Dunn and Tarasenko. If Tarasenko’s selected, problem solved.

Basically you tempt Seattle to either pick Tarasenko or a bottom 6 skater.

 

[parliamentlite]

Per Lebrun earlier:

"The Kraken had contract talks with pending UFA Jaden Schwartz but ultimately did not sign him during the window which just closed, source confirms. So the Kraken's pick will be another Blues player. Dunn? Tarasenko?"

 

[Frenzy31]

I would be completely fine with exposing Sundqvist and Barbashev over Dunn and I like both of them.

Tarasenko has more value than either of those 2. If the Blues lost either Sundqvist or Barbashev, they lose a bottom 6 player(one of which is recovering from injury) while keeping Dunn and Tarasenko. If Tarasenko’s selected, problem solved.

Basically you tempt Seattle to either pick Tarasenko or a bottom 6 skater.

So we should pay them to take someone else????

What would you have given them? A 2nd or more? So Barby and a 3 or 2nd round pick. Considering all we could get was at best a 2nd for Dunn......

 

[Louie the Blue]

So we should pay them to take someone else????

What would you have given them? A 2nd or more? So Barby and a 3 or 2nd round pick. Considering all we could get was at best a 2nd for Dunn......

I’m saying there’s a scenario in which Dunn could’ve been kept with dangling Tarasenko or lesser assets by protecting Dunn. When I said “force” I meant tempt. I’d much rather lose either of the bottom 6 players mentioned than Tarasenko, but would be fine losing Tarasenko as well.

I wanted Dunn to be apart of the team long term.

 

[Frenzy31]

I’m saying there’s a scenario in which Dunn could’ve been kept with dangling Tarasenko or lesser assets by protecting Dunn. When I said “force” I meant tempt. I’d much rather lose either of the bottom 6 players mentioned than Tarasenko, but would be fine losing Tarasenko as well.

I wanted Dunn to be apart of the team long term.

So we exposed Tarasenko. You talk about tempting - how? What are you offering?

 

[Louie the Blue]

So we exposed Tarasenko. You talk about tempting - how? What are you offering?

Which player(s) among these 4, given their contracts and skill, have the most value?

Tarasenko
Sundqvist
Barbashev
Dunn

I’d argue Dunn on his current contract and with his skill is better value than Tarasenko and the other 2 skaters.

Take him out of the equation because he’s protected and you’re left with this:
Tarasenko
Barbashev
Sundqvist

Sundqvist is going to miss time recovering next season, so the decision comes down to Barbashev and Tarasenko as attractive assets since Dunn’s protected and Sundqvist is hurt.

I’d much rather lose Barbashev-even while using Tarasenko as bait-over Dunn given how the roster is constructed currently, even with Perunovich on the horizon.

 

[parliamentlite]

Sucks to lose Dunn, especially without anything in return. The best time to trade him would have been before or during last season, or maybe even the season before that.

I'm also certain that the Blues did their due diligence and ultimately viewed the opportunity cost of trading him then as not worth the potential return at that point in time.

It seems to me they have a very high opinion on Perunovich, and they must've felt that last offseason whatever they could have gotten for Dunn was less valuable than one more season of Dunn plus delaying Perunovich's debut and RFA/UFA eligibility by one year. As it stands, they must feel like they have a guy who will be just as productive as Dunn on a lower cap hit for the next several years, and someone who will hit UFA just as Krug's contract expires (provided the CBA doesn't change). I think they also feel like Perunovich will be a part of the team's leadership group in the future who will wear at least an A in the future, whereas Dunn wasn't.

Time will tell if these were good judgments, and I'm not someone who really likes having two small guys on defense (especially on the same side of the ice), but some teams like Boston have been able to make it work.

 

[WeWentBlues]

Sure, but it was never going to happen. And given the Kraken (wisely) saying "thanks but no thanks" to all the pricey aging guys available to them, I doubt they would've taken Krug anyway.

I didn't want them to take Krug. The smart GM move would have been to expose Krug and protect Dunn. Kraken then take either Tarasenko, Krug, or someone else entirely. Blues can then trade Dunn once the dust settles.

 

[Ranksu]

Sure seems like Seattle is valuing the preservation of cap space with their picks. I assume they are viewing the flat cap over the next few years as an opportunity to pick up some excellent UFAs that wouldn't normally be available.

They must feel like they have a chance with Hamilton, Hall, and Landeskog this offseason.

Next year they can take Parayko.

 

[MissouriMook]

I didn't want them to take Krug. The smart GM move would have been to expose Krug and protect Dunn. Kraken then take either Tarasenko, Krug, or someone else entirely. Blues can then trade Dunn once the dust settles.

They take Krug without batting and eye and we are a worse team in the process. For all the talk over the last few months about the Petro and Tarasenko sagas alienating future UFAs from signing here, exposing Krug a year after you signed him is far, far worse and makes your team worse in the process. I guess if your goal is to completely destroy the franchise this is a logical move. Otherwise...

 

[Ranksu]

I didn't want them to take Krug. The smart GM move would have been to expose Krug and protect Dunn. Kraken then take either Tarasenko, Krug, or someone else entirely. Blues can then trade Dunn once the dust settles.

If Krug and Tarasenko would have been exposed and Dunn protected Seattle would most likely take Sanford, Blais or Mikkola.

 

[Louie the Blue]

They take Krug without batting and eye and we are a worse team in the process. For all the talk over the last few months about the Petro and Tarasenko sagas alienating future UFAs from signing here, exposing Krug a year after you signed him is far, far worse and makes your team worse in the process. I guess if your goal is to completely destroy the franchise this is a logical move. Otherwise...

Yeah, trading a FA you signed to a 7 year deal after the first season when he was relatively healthy and did what he was supposed to do is not a good look.

 

[The Note]

I didn't want them to take Krug. The smart GM move would have been to expose Krug and protect Dunn. Kraken then take either Tarasenko, Krug, or someone else entirely. Blues can then trade Dunn once the dust settles.

Yeah, I shouldn't have included the bit about them not taking him. My point is mostly that - they simply weren't going to do it. I wouldn't have really batted an eye if they had, but DA was never going to expose any of the big money/term guys that didn't explicitly ask out. Just wasn't going to happen.

 

[Novacain]

They take Krug without batting and eye and we are a worse team in the process. For all the talk over the last few months about the Petro and Tarasenko sagas alienating future UFAs from signing here, exposing Krug a year after you signed him is far, far worse and makes your team worse in the process. I guess if your goal is to completely destroy the franchise this is a logical move. Otherwise...

I love how you say this concretely in spite of there being no evidence to support you. Seattle took no player with more then 4 years left on there contract, and only took one player making over 6 million. And that player is Giordano, who is one the last year of that contract and is rumored to be on the move to New York before the end of the night. What about Krug makes you think he is that valuable to both those trends?

 

[parliamentlite]

They take Krug without batting and eye and we are a worse team in the process. For all the talk over the last few months about the Petro and Tarasenko sagas alienating future UFAs from signing here, exposing Krug a year after you signed him is far, far worse and makes your team worse in the process. I guess if your goal is to completely destroy the franchise this is a logical move. Otherwise...

I agree. Every season, guys leave the teams that drafted them in somewhat messy divorces. Ultimately, the player had no choice on going the city and franchise that drafted them. Happens with every franchise and as such it's normal and understandable.

It's totally different when a UFA with multiple offers on the table chooses to commit to your franchise and city for what is essentially the rest of their career (and potentially longer). So long as that player integrates into the roster and the clubhouse, as Krug to all indications has, exposing them in the expansion draft or shopping them for trades after one season is a legitimately terrible look for future UFAs.

Edit: I think this is especially important for the Blues in light of their "no NMCs" stance. They have to demonstrate that if you commit to them long term, they are committed to you.