2021 Expansion Draft Discussion

[Brian39]

Time to pump the breaks on all this talk about "what will we do if Parayko's career is in jeopardy?" If that is the case, then he is exempt from the expansion draft.

"Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a team's player exposure requirements unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection." Bolded is mine.

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft rules same as Golden Knights followed

It is also worth noting that the 60 game rule is identical to the last draft and was finalized before anyone knew the season would be shortened. Every other GP number in the CBA is being prorated, so there is a pretty good chance the Blues can say "that one should be too." If that number is subject to proration, then it will apply to any player who misses the last 40 or 41 games of this season. Parayko would miss our last 40 regular season games plus playoffs if he doesn't return (and I'm about 90% sure playoff games count for the calculation). Even if he falls shy of the games missed requirement, if we are experiencing the medical uncertainty needed to expose him, then we would clearly be able to meet the NHL's burden of demonstrating that he has a career-threatening injury.

In the worst-case scenarios where Parayko's back issue casts enough doubt on the future to expose him, the rules of the expansion draft will exempt him from the entire process. It is a no-brainer to keep him unless his career is genuinely in jeopardy and his career being genuinely in jeopardy would make him ineligible.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Time to pump the breaks on all this talk about "what will we do if Parayko's career is in jeopardy?" If that is the case, then he is exempt from the expansion draft.

Well, yes and no.

If he's got an injury and it's truly career-threatening, yes - he probably doesn't go on the exposed list. We also probably don't protect him. He sits on the exempt list like Nathan Horton did for Toronto and David Clarkson did for Columbus.

If he's got an injury that's "merely" chronic and is going to linger for years and over time impact his ability to play, ... well, it's perhaps career-limiting but not career-threatening. He can still play for a while, he'd just be at a diminished level, and at some point semi-soon he'd be done. Even in that instance, the league would very likely say "either protect him or expose him, we're not making him exempt." Somewhere in there is a line at which we say eh, that's too much risk, too much diminishment - we'll save someone else. Somewhere in there is uncertainty that says well, it's not clearly career-threatening but we don't like the prognosis, we'll let someone else take that risk if they want it. The question is where that line lies.

Like I said when I made the comment: the entire premise of my remark is based on the phrase depending on what exactly is going on with Parayko. We're a long way away from walking away from him, but based on JR's reporting I'm not willing to say it's 100%, there is no chance at all we don't that we protect him.

 

[Brian39]

Well, yes and no.

If he's got an injury and it's truly career-threatening, yes - he probably doesn't go on the exposed list. We also probably don't protect him. He sits on the exempt list like Nathan Horton did for Toronto and David Clarkson did for Columbus.

If he's got an injury that's "merely" chronic and is going to linger for years and over time impact his ability to play, ... well, it's perhaps career-limiting but not career-threatening. He can still play for a while, he'd just be at a diminished level, and at some point semi-soon he'd be done. Even in that instance, the league would very likely say "either protect him or expose him, we're not making him exempt." Somewhere in there is a line at which we say eh, that's too much risk, too much diminishment - we'll save someone else. Somewhere in there is uncertainty that says well, it's not clearly career-threatening but we don't like the prognosis, we'll let someone else take that risk if they want it. The question is where that line lies.

Like I said when I made the comment: the entire premise of my remark is based on the phrase depending on what exactly is going on with Parayko. We're a long way away from walking away from him, but based on JR's reporting I'm not willing to say it's 100%, there is no chance at all we don't that we protect him.

If we were 2 years out I would agree. But the expansion draft is in less than half a year.

There is no reality with our current medical technology that we will know whether something is career-limiting (but not career-threatening) by the time of the expansion draft. If we know that the injury is not career-threatening, then the reality we will exist in is that it may be career-limiting but he also has a decent chance of a full recovery. If a full recovery is ruled out at the 4-5 month mark, then the possibility of forced retirement is still very much on the table and it would be considered career-threatening.

Even if the chances of a full recovery are not great, the extra year of date to make a decision on Parayko you get by protecting him is worth more than keeping Dunn (who will get a good raise in arbitration), Sanford (who will get a good raise in arbitration), Sunny, etc.

The line you are talking about exists, but we will not have enough medical info to know that were are at that point in the line until months after the expansion draft.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I assume drafted players need to pass a physical, right? Is there a scenario where a player could be drafted then fail the physical? If so, would Seattle get another pick?

I think the speculation that Parayko’s injury is potentially long-term is based off a vapor. I see no reason to really think that’s any more likely than say Thomas. My question above isn’t really with Parayko in mind.

 

[Brian39]

I assume drafted players need to pass a physical, right? Is there a scenario where a player could be drafted then fail the physical? If so, would Seattle get another pick?

I think the speculation that Parayko’s injury is potentially long-term is based off a vapor. I see no reason to really think that’s any more likely than say Thomas. My question above isn’t really with Parayko in mind.

I don't believe that there are any additional physicals in relation to the expansion draft. There are end-of-the-year physicals and I assume that teams are required to share those with Seattle if they are requested.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I have no idea where the idea comes from that Parayko is somehow done or going to be a shell of himself for the future, other than typical HFBlues “the sky is falling”.

Seriously though, where is this coming from? If nowhere in-particular, remember that Edmundson’s back was much more serious as a prospect and he became a contributor, and I agree with the above comment: why aren’t we also worried Schwartz, Thomas, etc are now in danger of hanging them up? Suddenly the whole team has a likelihood to never play another game.

 

[Brian39]

I have no idea where the idea comes from that Parayko is somehow done or going to be a shell of himself for the future, other than typical HFBlues “the sky is falling”.

Seriously though, where is this coming from? If nowhere in-particular, remember that Edmundson’s back was much more serious as a prospect and he became a contributor, and I agree with the above comment: why aren’t we also worried Schwartz, Thomas, etc are now in danger of hanging them up? Suddenly the whole team has a likelihood to never play another game.

I agree that we are putting the cart way before the horse. By far the most likely outcome is that Parayko returns at 100% at some point in the future.

However, back injuries are notoriously harder to predict than most other injuries. There aren't a whole lot of single-incident injuries that threaten the career of a pro athlete under 30. Most of them are injuries to the back and neck. In a vacuum, the odds of a back injury ending a career are substantially higher than pretty much any other injury. Secrecy/vagueness surrounding an injury always fuels "worst case scenario" thinking, so you have people jumping to a worst-case-scenario.

So while the most likely outcome is that he will be fine on a long-term scale, there is valid concern that this type of injury caries a non-insignificant risk of career derailment.

 

[Spektre]

Buying my Owen Power jersey tomorrow

 

[Ranksu]

Buying my Owen Power jersey tomorrow

Send it to Army then.

And put note.

Loving memory from Pietro.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

Buying my Owen Power jersey tomorrow

I think you might want to hold off on that purchase when the player Power is being compared to, by fans who watch him, is Erik Johnson.

(Before someone says anything, yes, I know Johnson was a highly touted prospect way back when)

 

[Spektre]

I think you might want to hold off on that purchase when the player Power is being compared to, by fans who watch him, is Erik Johnson.

(Before someone says anything, yes, I know Johnson was a highly touted prospect way back when)

Yes I only joke because of how bad the Blues keep playing

 

[Spektre]

Send it to Army then.

And put note.

Loving memory from Pietro.

I know you joke and love Pietro but hey the Blues did get a Cup.. I don't expect the Blues to rebuild right now but even if they did I don't care near as much as I would have without the Cup.

 

[Ranksu]

I know you joke and love Pietro but hey the Blues did get a Cup.. I don't expect the Blues to rebuild right now but even if they did I don't care near as much as I would have without the Cup.

That is last option for Army now. That bold f*** will trade all his picks before he go tank mode.

 

[Reality Czech]

I think you might want to hold off on that purchase when the player Power is being compared to, by fans who watch him, is Erik Johnson.

(Before someone says anything, yes, I know Johnson was a highly touted prospect way back when)

That would just be our luck. Miss the playoffs due to unprecedented injuries, miraculously win the lottery to get the first overall pick and then end up with Erik Johnson 2.0.

 

[Stealth JD]

My choices as of today.

Forwards	Defensemen	Goalies
Vladimir Tarasenko	Colton Parayko	Jordan Binnington
Ryan O'Reilly	Vince Dunn	Ville Husso
Jaden Schwartz	Justin Faulk	Jon Gillies
Brayden Schenn	Torey Krug	Evan Fitzpatrick
Robert Thomas	Marco Scandella	Joel Hofer
Jordan Kyrou	Carl Gunnarsson
David Perron	Robert Bortuzzo
Oskar Sundqvist	Niko Mikkola
Sammy Blais	Mitch Reinke
Zach Sanford	Jake Walman
Ivan Barbashev	Scott Perunovich
Kyle Clifford	Tyler Tucker
Mackenzie MacEachern
Jacob de la Rose
Austin Poganski
Klim Kostin
Nikita Alexandrov
Alexei Toropchenko		Protected
Jake Neighbours		Available
Hugh McGing		Exempt

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'd rather protect an injured Sunny than a healthy Faulk; but I don't think going 8F/2D is allowed. I'd also rather protect the cost-controlled kids like Dunn & Mikkola than the expensive 2nd pair-guys recently signed...but the D-would get very thin if Krug or Faulk were plucked, so Army would need to have a plan to revamp the defense if he could somehow get out of one of those contracts.

Seattle would almost have to go Krug or Sundqvist in this scenario, unless they saw a future William Karlsson in another one of our depth forwards.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

There isn’t much decision-making on the protected list. The only potential dilemma i see is Perron vs Sundqvist. I can see that argued both ways. I see no way they protect Dunn over Krug.

 

[LGB]

My choices as of today.

Forwards	Defensemen	Goalies
Vladimir Tarasenko	Colton Parayko	Jordan Binnington
Ryan O'Reilly	Vince Dunn	Ville Husso
Jaden Schwartz	Justin Faulk	Jon Gillies
Brayden Schenn	Torey Krug	Evan Fitzpatrick
Robert Thomas	Marco Scandella	Joel Hofer
Jordan Kyrou	Carl Gunnarsson
David Perron	Robert Bortuzzo
Oskar Sundqvist	Niko Mikkola
Sammy Blais	Mitch Reinke
Zach Sanford	Jake Walman
Ivan Barbashev	Scott Perunovich
Kyle Clifford	Tyler Tucker
Mackenzie MacEachern
Jacob de la Rose
Austin Poganski
Klim Kostin
Nikita Alexandrov
Alexei Toropchenko		Protected
Jake Neighbours		Available
Hugh McGing		Exempt

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'd rather protect an injured Sunny than a healthy Faulk; but I don't think going 8F/2D is allowed. I'd also rather protect the cost-controlled kids like Dunn & Mikkola than the expensive 2nd pair-guys recently signed...but the D-would get very thin if Krug or Faulk were plucked, so Army would need to have a plan to revamp the defense if he could somehow get out of one of those contracts.

Seattle would almost have to go Krug or Sundqvist in this scenario, unless they saw a future William Karlsson in another one of our depth forwards.

I like the way you formatted this.

On the topic of Dunn vs. Krug. Cap space is an asset. Look at how the Avs filled out their roster plucking quality players like Teows, Burakovsky, Saad, and Donskoi away from teams that would have had trouble finding the money to re-sign them. Right now the Blues have a few questionable long-term deals and Krug is one of them. He turns 30 in month and is signed at an AAV of 6.5m for 7 seasons (including this one). On the other hand Dunn is 24 years old and when his deal worth 1.875m expires after this season he will become an RFA. I'm not sure exactly what he'll get, but I'd guess if he signs for 4 years it would be a deal worth around 4m annually. That's 2.5m in cap savings over the span of Dunn's contract and takes us completely off the hook for Krug's 34/35 and 35/36 year old seasons.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

There's really only two D-man I'd protect. Parayko and Faulk. Out of everyone else I'd pick Krug. Dunn is way too inconsistent, Mikkola, Scandella, and Bortuzzo won't be chosen.

Out of our forwards and defense Dunn is the most likely to be chosen. Young LHD, RFA, top 4 potential, Stanley Cup winning experience, and can play as a PPQB.

Sunny coming off of a ACL tear will have seattle look away from him, Blais, Barbie, and Sanford don't have the potential to be a picked over Dunn.

 

[Blueston]

There's really only two D-man I'd protect. Parayko and Faulk. Out of everyone else I'd pick Krug. Dunn is way too inconsistent, Mikkola, Scandella, and Bortuzzo won't be chosen.

Out of our forwards and defense Dunn is the most likely to be chosen. Young LHD, RFA, top 4 potential, Stanley Cup winning experience, and can play as a PPQB.

Sunny coming off of a ACL tear will have seattle look away from him, Blais, Barbie, and Sanford don't have the potential to be a picked over Dunn.

Krug is obviously a good bit better than Dunn or Mikkola. Question is how we feel about his contract. If we want out of it- or even if we are ambivalent- could make sense to expose him.

 

[Eldon Reid]

There's really only two D-man I'd protect. Parayko and Faulk. Out of everyone else I'd pick Krug. Dunn is way too inconsistent, Mikkola, Scandella, and Bortuzzo won't be chosen.

Out of our forwards and defense Dunn is the most likely to be chosen. Young LHD, RFA, top 4 potential, Stanley Cup winning experience, and can play as a PPQB.

Sunny coming off of a ACL tear will have seattle look away from him, Blais, Barbie, and Sanford don't have the potential to be a picked over Dunn.

I don't think the ACL tear would scare them. Maybe if it was 20-25 years ago it would.

 

[Eldon Reid]

My choices as of today.

Forwards	Defensemen	Goalies
Vladimir Tarasenko	Colton Parayko	Jordan Binnington
Ryan O'Reilly	Vince Dunn	Ville Husso
Jaden Schwartz	Justin Faulk	Jon Gillies
Brayden Schenn	Torey Krug	Evan Fitzpatrick
Robert Thomas	Marco Scandella	Joel Hofer
Jordan Kyrou	Carl Gunnarsson
David Perron	Robert Bortuzzo
Oskar Sundqvist	Niko Mikkola
Sammy Blais	Mitch Reinke
Zach Sanford	Jake Walman
Ivan Barbashev	Scott Perunovich
Kyle Clifford	Tyler Tucker
Mackenzie MacEachern
Jacob de la Rose
Austin Poganski
Klim Kostin
Nikita Alexandrov
Alexei Toropchenko		Protected
Jake Neighbours		Available
Hugh McGing		Exempt

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'd rather protect an injured Sunny than a healthy Faulk; but I don't think going 8F/2D is allowed. I'd also rather protect the cost-controlled kids like Dunn & Mikkola than the expensive 2nd pair-guys recently signed...but the D-would get very thin if Krug or Faulk were plucked, so Army would need to have a plan to revamp the defense if he could somehow get out of one of those contracts.

Seattle would almost have to go Krug or Sundqvist in this scenario, unless they saw a future William Karlsson in another one of our depth forwards.

Only mistake is you forgot to put Mike Hoffman on it.

Can't do 8 F/ 2 D. If you do 8 skaters, it has to be minimum of 4 forwards and 4 dman, but can do like 3 forwards 5 dman.

IMO our issue is just the last position on forwards and if they happen to sign Schwartz before end of season. Because if they don't sign Schwartz, Seattle can pick him but it doesn't mean he will sign with them.

LOCK Forwards: O'Reilly, Schenn, Tarasenko, Thomas, Kyrou, Perron, (If you sign Schwartz before the draft he is 7th), but I can see them not signing him and protecting Sunny with a "mutual agreement in place with Schwartz signing him long term after the draft.

LOCK Defenseman: Krug, Faulk, Parayko

LOCK Goalie: Binnington

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Is Sundqvist so valuable that Seattle would take him and be fine with him sitting out at least half the season and not being 100% until '22-23? Probably not. He's a good energy guy, has some grit, nose for a little offense and all that, but it's not like he's some poor man's Guy Carbonneau. I'm not sure he's even say a modern day Rick Meagher.

If healthy, I'd be more concerned he'd get plucked. On an ACL tear that puts him out for a while? Nah, Seattle will pass.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I like the way you formatted this.

On the topic of Dunn vs. Krug. Cap space is an asset. Look at how the Avs filled out their roster plucking quality players like Teows, Burakovsky, Saad, and Donskoi away from teams that would have had trouble finding the money to re-sign them. Right now the Blues have a few questionable long-term deals and Krug is one of them. He turns 30 in month and is signed at an AAV of 6.5m for 7 seasons (including this one). On the other hand Dunn is 24 years old and when his deal worth 1.875m expires after this season he will become an RFA. I'm not sure exactly what he'll get, but I'd guess if he signs for 4 years it would be a deal worth around 4m annually. That's 2.5m in cap savings over the span of Dunn's contract and takes us completely off the hook for Krug's 34/35 and 35/36 year old seasons.

I'm not arguing the virtue of protecting Krug over Dunn as much as reading what Armstrong will do. He values Krug (and Faulk). He gave him a long-term contract. That's not an idle decision. The front office scouts these guys heavily, and they bet on Krug. I just don't think anything has occurred to significantly change their views on Krug. Meanwhile, Dunn was being shopped and is a borderline malcontent (mentions of his agent calling to request more ice time, etc) who isn't under long-term team control. I just don't see any scenario where the front office's algorithm protects Dunn over Krug. We can debate whether they SHOULD think that, and its an interesting discussion. But I think ultimately an honest observer can pretty well predict what the team will do there.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Is Sundqvist so valuable that Seattle would take him and be fine with him sitting out at least half the season and not being 100% until '22-23? Probably not. He's a good energy guy, has some grit, nose for a little offense and all that, but it's not like he's some poor man's Guy Carbonneau. I'm not sure he's even say a modern day Rick Meagher.

If healthy, I'd be more concerned he'd get plucked. On an ACL tear that puts him out for a while? Nah, Seattle will pass.

I think you're probably right, especially if Krug or Dunn are available. But in terms of painful losses for the Blues, it would be easier to absorb losing either of those D-men than Sundqvist.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think you're probably right, especially if Krug or Dunn are available. But in terms of painful losses for the Blues, it would be easier to absorb losing either of those D-men than Sundqvist.

Take a look at our depth on the blueline. If we lose a Krug or a Dunn, Perunovich probably goes into the top-7 [top-6; he won't sit watching] and he'll have to fill that spot. That leaves Walman, Santini and Tyler Tucker for depth.

Any other prospect we have rights to isn't NHL-ready and won't be for a while, and none of them project to a top-4 spot. If everyone stays healthy, we're probably OK. If not, we'll have flashbacks to the defense from this season. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to moving either Dunn or Krug, just that if we're doing it I want an experienced defenseman coming back so we're not asking Perunovich to jump in after not playing for the better part of 2 years, find his skates quick and produce like a veteran. I'd like to build a small amount of depth in case we need it, not test how quickly we can scrape the bottom of it.