2021 Expansion Draft Discussion

[Moose and Squirrel]

Don’t understand so many folks protecting Kyrou over Sanford. Is possible Kyrou makes leap this year but more likely that sanford remains much better player.

ugh.. no thank you.. and that was even before this season started

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

I hope we expose Faulk, but I am pretty sure it won't happen.

you spelled Krug wrong

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

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.

also keep in mind... just cause Seattle drafts em, doesn't mean they have to stay there. they could trade em as well

 

[Blueston]

ugh.. no thank you.. and that was even before this season started

Obviously Kyrou has seemingly played himself onto protected list. Was not foregone conclusion he would.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

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.

So...what, offer a deal to protect an additional defender? I’m not sure what you’re proposing here.

 

[Frenzy31]

Has anyone else looked at the +/- stat this year for Dmen. To me it is a pretty worthless stat to use when looking between two different teams. However, I think it is useful stat when looking at players on the same team.

Krug is a +9, Faulk is a +8. Dunn is tied for a team worst -6. Part of that may be on the forwards in the 5 man unit, but it for all the flack Krug gets for being 1 dimensional, he is a much better player then Dunn. (Now is he worth the contact, No).

But, beyond Hamilton, I don't see any single UFA that I feel would be an upgrade on him. So if he is taken, we will likely down grade our personnel.

 

[Frenzy31]

So...what, offer a deal to protect an additional defender? I’m not sure what you’re proposing here.

I think he is comparing the loss of Dunn as opposed to a forward like Sundqvist.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

So...what, offer a deal to protect an additional defender? I’m not sure what you’re proposing here.

We could go few routes:

1. Lose a defenseman, don't get anyone else to replace. That's the worst-case scenario IMO.
2. Lose a defenseman in the draft, acquire another via trade afterwards. Cost is uncertain, you have to find a trade partner for that, and no I don't have a list of desired targets for who we'd go after. However, this is always an option. Also retains the possibility of getting a couple depth players.
3. Make a deal with Seattle so we don't lose a defenseman. Can be "you agree not to take ____" or "you agree to take ______." Accomplishes the same thing. Requires Seattle to go along with it, may not be cheap if they really want to take who we want excluded. Also retains the possibility of getting a couple depth players.
4. Don't lose a defenseman in the draft, still go make a defenseman-for-defenseman trade and/or add a couple depth players. Same points as #2.
5. Don't lose a defenseman in the draft, do nothing. We have the depth I outlined above.

There will likely be conversations to feel out who Seattle might want to take, and that will shape how we approach things and whether we need to go the 3rd route. [I think if we have to go to #3, Sanford is headed out with a pick or two.] I don't have a preferred route in that list, other than I don't want to go the 1st route and I think adding a couple guys with a little NHL experience for depth would be smart. I'm indifferent on who/if we trade, but I think we need a pretty good idea of we're going to be with respect to the cap after dealing with guys who need to be signed or replaced to know what our options are for improving the defense.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I see that Krug is turning into Faulk pt. 2.

There isn’t a chance he gets exposed in the expansion draft.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I think it's pretty clear that we're going to lose either Dunn or Sundquivst/Sanford in the expansion draft, barring us trading one of those guys or working out a deal with Seattle ahead of time. I'd prefer they pick Sunqvist or Sanford personally, Dunn is still young and cost controlled, yes he struggles defensively but his skating and offensive instincts are tough to replace at his price point. Sundqvist is a really solid player, I like him a lot, but let's not go too crazy over Sobotka 2.0

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

We could go few routes:

1. Lose a defenseman, don't get anyone else to replace. That's the worst-case scenario IMO.
2. Lose a defenseman in the draft, acquire another via trade afterwards. Cost is uncertain, you have to find a trade partner for that, and no I don't have a list of desired targets for who we'd go after. However, this is always an option. Also retains the possibility of getting a couple depth players.
3. Make a deal with Seattle so we don't lose a defenseman. Can be "you agree not to take ____" or "you agree to take ______." Accomplishes the same thing. Requires Seattle to go along with it, may not be cheap if they really want to take who we want excluded. Also retains the possibility of getting a couple depth players.
4. Don't lose a defenseman in the draft, still go make a defenseman-for-defenseman trade and/or add a couple depth players. Same points as #2.
5. Don't lose a defenseman in the draft, do nothing. We have the depth I outlined above.

There will likely be conversations to feel out who Seattle might want to take, and that will shape how we approach things and whether we need to go the 3rd route. [I think if we have to go to #3, Sanford is headed out with a pick or two.] I don't have a preferred route in that list, other than I don't want to go the 1st route and I think adding a couple guys with a little NHL experience for depth would be smart. I'm indifferent on who/if we trade, but I think we need a pretty good idea of we're going to be with respect to the cap after dealing with guys who need to be signed or replaced to know what our options are for improving the defense.

It seems likely Dunn’s representation was complaining and may have even asked for a trade if nothing improved. Not clear, but I do believe he was on the trading block. Then after injuries, his ice time is much better, trade threat has passed for now.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the plan is still to move him. Seattle is going to get a quality player from the Blues either way. Perunovich’s injury is a monkey wrench, it it looks like they’re very high on him. Maybe Walman and Perunovich duke it out for a roster spot. A lot depends on Schwartz re-signing and the Cap remains.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It seems likely Dunn’s representation was complaining and may have even asked for a trade if nothing improved. Not clear, but I do believe he was on the trading block. Then after injuries, his ice time is much better, trade threat has passed for now.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the plan is still to move him. Seattle is going to get a quality player from the Blues either way. Perunovich’s injury is a monkey wrench, it it looks like they’re very high on him. Maybe Walman and Perunovich duke it out for a roster spot. A lot depends on Schwartz re-signing and the Cap remains.

It wouldn't surprise me either if Dunn is moved. Does Perunovich go in the top-7 with no pro experience and coming off shoulder surgery? Probably not, because he needs to play and I can't see us lobbing him into a starting spot unless he's really that ready to go and I don't buy that he is. Would Walman as the extra be the worst thing? No, but I don't know that I want him logging 40-50 games a season for us either unless we have to

On contracts: I'd expect Schwartz to land where Schenn is. Maybe a little more because it's that apparent what Schwartz means to this team, but let's call it $6.5 million. Thomas and Kyrou will each be about 2 years, $4 million total because they're RFAs with no leverage and they'll get squeezed in typical Armstrong fashion. [Not a perjorative, just a statement of how he does this with non-elite RFAs who have no leverage.] Sanford is arbitration-eligible, he probably lands around Sundqvist money but let's say he's $2.25 million. Barbashev is arbitration-eligible, he probably lands just south of Sundqvist. Say he's $2.25 million as well. DLR is arbitration-eligible, I can't see him getting more than $900K. I'll presume Bozak and Hoffman aren't back and MacEachern and DLR are the extras.

Pull Dunn out, put in Walman as the extra on defense and we're at about $78.1 million, so around $3.4 million in cap space. If you find someone to go into our top-6 you have about $4.1 million (the $3.4M + Walman's 750K) to do it. That's workable. The question then becomes who that might be.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

It wouldn't surprise me either if Dunn is moved. Does Perunovich go in the top-7 with no pro experience and coming off shoulder surgery? Probably not, because he needs to play and I can't see us lobbing him into a starting spot unless he's really that ready to go and I don't buy that he is. Would Walman as the extra be the worst thing? No, but I don't know that I want him logging 40-50 games a season for us either unless we have to

On contracts: I'd expect Schwartz to land where Schenn is. Maybe a little more because it's that apparent what Schwartz means to this team, but let's call it $6.5 million. Thomas and Kyrou will each be about 2 years, $4 million total because they're RFAs with no leverage and they'll get squeezed in typical Armstrong fashion. [Not a perjorative, just a statement of how he does this with non-elite RFAs who have no leverage.] Sanford is arbitration-eligible, he probably lands around Sundqvist money but let's say he's $2.25 million. Barbashev is arbitration-eligible, he probably lands just south of Sundqvist. Say he's $2.25 million as well. DLR is arbitration-eligible, I can't see him getting more than $900K. I'll presume Bozak and Hoffman aren't back and MacEachern and DLR are the extras.

Pull Dunn out, put in Walman as the extra on defense and we're at about $78.1 million, so around $3.4 million in cap space. If you find someone to go into our top-6 you have about $4.1 million (the $3.4M + Walman's 750K) to do it. That's workable. The question then becomes who that might be.

Honestly the only LHD that looks appealing and might drop under 4MIL this offseason is Ryan Murray.

 

[Zamadoo]

Based on what I've gathered and from the discussion here, there are a few variables:
1. Schwartz signing before or after expansion draft (would open a spot)
2. Army could be pro-active to clear room
3. Army could incentivize Seattle to take a specific player that is unwanted or wants out

I think Schwartz will re-sign prior to the expansion draft. Perron, Kyrou, and Thomas will be protected. There will be a lot of popular names and valuable players available. I kind of hope Army coerces Seattle to take Scandella or Krug, but Dunn may already be on the way out. I lean towards wanting to keep the SC Champs together. With Perunovich, Mikkola, Walman, and Tucker seemingly within 3 years if not sooner, it makes sense to move Krug (6 years) and keep both Scandella (3 years) and Dunn (re-signed 3-4 years).

Take your pick Seattle:

FWD:
Sundqvist
Sanford
Barbashev
Blais
MacEachern
Kaspick
DLR
Stevens
Bozak (if re-signed prior to expansion, unlikely)

D:
The Decision (One must go):
Krug
Dunn
Scandella

Bortuzzo
Mikkola
Walman
Reinke (if re-signed prior to expansion, unlikely)
Gunnarsson (if re-signed prior to expansion, unlikely)

G:
Husso
Fitzpatrick



I'm going to laugh when they take an unprotected Perron.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Yeah, they’ll take Perron.

 

[LGB]

Has anyone else looked at the +/- stat this year for Dmen. To me it is a pretty worthless stat to use when looking between two different teams. However, I think it is useful stat when looking at players on the same team.

Krug is a +9, Faulk is a +8. Dunn is tied for a team worst -6. Part of that may be on the forwards in the 5 man unit, but it for all the flack Krug gets for being 1 dimensional, he is a much better player then Dunn. (Now is he worth the contact, No).

But, beyond Hamilton, I don't see any single UFA that I feel would be an upgrade on him. So if he is taken, we will likely down grade our personnel.

What if I told you Dunn was +19 at 5v5 last season and +15 the season before. First and second among Blues defenseman in those years.

 

[simon IC]

There is absolutely no way Armstrong does not protect Krug. He has invested too much in to the defenseman and obviously views him as an important piece of the core going forward.

 

[LGB]

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.

Yes we signed Krug to a long contract, but expansion draft protection was not a part of that contract. If they don't at least explore the possibility of exposing him that's just bad asset management in my opinion. If I were to bet on who they would protect between Krug and Dunn I'd bet on Krug, but I hope it's not a foregone conclusion.

 

[MissouriMook]

There is absolutely no way Armstrong does not protect Krug. He has invested too much in to the defenseman and obviously views him as an important piece of the core going forward.

I don't think there is a defenseman currently on the roster other than Parayko and Faulk that would get protected ahead of him. That said, if Army were to go "big game hunting" at the deadline and acquire a premium LD that isn't a rental, I could see a scenario where he either exposes Krug to make room for another contract or trades Seattle a good player (Dunn/Sanford) for next to nothing to select someone else (Sanford/Dunn) instead to keep our Top 4 intact.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Based on what I've gathered and from the discussion here, there are a few variables:
1. Schwartz signing before or after expansion draft (would open a spot)
2. Army could be pro-active to clear room
3. Army could incentivize Seattle to take a specific player that is unwanted or wants out

I think Schwartz will re-sign prior to the expansion draft.

I completely disagree. There is zero incentive for Armstrong to get Schwartz under contract if he has 7 other forwards he wants to protect. [I'd be shocked if he couldn't identify 7.] An unsigned Schwartz if you've got agreement on a contract is a free 8th spot; why would you give that up by agreeing to terms and signing off on it?

Maximize your flexibility. That means maximizing who all you can protect. That means not actually signing Schwartz until the moment after Seattle has selected someone off our available list.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Yes we signed Krug to a long contract, but expansion draft protection was not a part of that contract. If they don't at least explore the possibility of exposing him that's just bad asset management in my opinion. If I were to bet on who they would protect between Krug and Dunn I'd bet on Krug, but I hope it's not a foregone conclusion.

Sure, if their appraisal of Krug has changed, they may expose him. I just don’t believe that has happened and many of the hypothetical scenarios I see people drawing up insert their biases about Krug rather than trying to read Armstrong’s biases.

 

[Stealth JD]

The flat cap really makes the Dunn contract-situation so valuable. If Army can lose either Faulk OR Krug in the E.D. he's got so much more flexibility to reshape this roster and change the dynamic of the defense which simply cannot defend well enough without 55 eating the heavy minutes. It is no wonder his back gave out. He's been carrying this defense on his shoulders since Army anointed him leader of the D.

 

[Eldon Reid]

I completely disagree. There is zero incentive for Armstrong to get Schwartz under contract if he has 7 other forwards he wants to protect. [I'd be shocked if he couldn't identify 7.] An unsigned Schwartz if you've got agreement on a contract is a free 8th spot; why would you give that up by agreeing to terms and signing off on it?

Maximize your flexibility. That means maximizing who all you can protect. That means not actually signing Schwartz until the moment after Seattle has selected someone off our available list.

THIS ^^^^

I think they will have a "handshake agreement" (similar money to Schenn deal), but not sign it until after the expansion draft. No extension with Schwartz will allow you to protect one extra player whether it is Sunny, Barbashev, Blais, or Sanford.

Seattle won't waste a pick on a UFA that could sign elsewhere he wants to.

 

[Zamadoo]

THIS ^^^^

I think they will have a "handshake agreement" (similar money to Schenn deal), but not sign it until after the expansion draft. No extension with Schwartz will allow you to protect one extra player whether it is Sunny, Barbashev, Blais, or Sanford.

Seattle won't waste a pick on a UFA that could sign elsewhere he wants to.

I agree there could be a handshake agreement. I also think Schwartz is the top priority, and he may go for a lower AAV for the 8th year he could get if he signs before the expansion draft. As a UFA, he would get at least $7.5m/yr. I'm thinking 7.5x7 compared to 6.5x8 or some numbers similar. We could then offer Seattle something to not take certain players, or to take a specific player.

 

[Blueston]

I agree there could be a handshake agreement. I also think Schwartz is the top priority, and he may go for a lower AAV for the 8th year he could get if he signs before the expansion draft. As a UFA, he would get at least $7.5m/yr. I'm thinking 7.5x7 compared to 6.5x8 or some numbers similar. We could then offer Seattle something to not take certain players, or to take a specific player.

No way he gets 7.5 x 7. My guess is he gets same or less than Schenn.