2021 Off Season Discussion Thread

[Thallis]

He really doesn’t have much competition though. I still like and appreciate the effort, even those there are obvious flaws.

The biggest competition is the sports bookies, which his model consistently beats.

 

[Ranksu]

I almost choked up. Thanks.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I've lost a lot of respect for Dom's model over the last few days, because it is all over the map.

Parayko is a $5M player while Krug is projected to average out as a $6.3M player over the life of his deal (and is currently worth more than his $6.5M AAV).

Sunny is a $1.7M player under his model while Bortz is a $1.8M player. Sanford is a $3.1M player

MacMac is apparently $500k worse than a replacement-level league minimum player and Scandella is a below replacement-level league minimum player.

Looking around the league, pretty much anyone who plays a defensive role takes a massive pounding from his model. I genuinely can't figure out how Drew Doughty was a $3.8M player last year (and is projected to be a bottom pair guy next year) while Krug is close to a $7M D man. They had shockingly similar numbers this year in the same division. Krug had 4 more even strength points and 2 fewer overall points. Krug was an expected -3.2 while Doughty was a +0.5, Both had good possession metrics with Krug having a small but not insignificant edge. However, Krug started off in the offensive zone 58% of the time compared to 53% for Doughty and Doughty was more consistently out there against a better quality of competition. I'm fine if you want to say that Krug was a touch better, but he is worth more than $6.5M and DOughty was less than $4M? No clue how that happens.

Makar is a $16M player in his model, which is fair since his "valuation" is based purely on output and not really the real-world limits that exist. However, D Toews is a $10.6M guy on average over the next 3 years and Girard is a $9.5M guy for the next 6. Come on now.

I ultimately agree that our contract efficiency isn't great, but Dom's model seems to have been crushed by the weird COVID schedule. It's all over the place.

One of the issues is that he always tweaks his model to what the most recent success is. So when we won the Cup, all of a sudden he made two way players (and defensive skills in general) much more valuable. This last season, with Colorado putting up video game possession numbers, now all of a sudden his model loves everyone who looks like they would do well on the Avs. It's good that he's changing his model to reflect the realities of the current state of the game, but I think it allows it to become to "swing-y" for lack of a better term.

How he rates Krug as a positive value player while rating Faulk as a negative value player is a great example. Krug had higher offensive zone starts, yet worse Corsi and Fenwick. His xGF was a slight bit higher, but he was also a -.2 Corsi Rel to Faulk's 1.5 Corsi Rel. Faulk played almost 1.5 minutes more per game then Krug, yet got almost 2 less minutes of PP time, while logging 2 more minutes of PK time. Yet Faulk was only outscored by 7 points. I know the model works off of a three year curve, but it clearly gives too much weight to prior seasons, especially prior seasons with other teams.

Faulk has looked really solid ever since the bubble started. Krug I think will look better next year, but I'm still not sure where he fits. He seems more like a 2nd pair PP guy - a LH Shattenkirk. Problem is, Scandella is so not a top pair guy. I've been secretly dreaming about Walman just figuring it out and forming a dynamic top pairing with Parayko, but it's a dream for a reason.

 

[LGB]

Yeah, you are the only one on the boards that don't like those contracts... Keep fighting the good fight. Or... just drop it because the horse gets beaten in every thread and most on here know we aren't going to be able to move those contracts. Best just support the players and hope they play well at this point.

He's not the only one. Especially when we had better internal options. Like you said though we're beating a dead horse here.

 

[Em etah Eh]

It was sarcasm. He makes himself out to be some sort of martyr on the subject. I’m on his side on some of these things but he just brings it up over and over again that I almost want to love both contracts just because of it…

 

[ChicagoBlues]

It was sarcasm. He makes himself out to be some sort of martyr on the subject. I’m on his side on some of these things but he just brings it up over and over again that I almost want to love both contracts just because of it…

Cuz he hate me

 

[Mike Liut]

We desperately need a 1st pairing LD and to sign Parayko long term. We have the assets to make it happen at some point.

 

[Blanick]

We desperately need a 1st pairing LD and to sign Parayko long term. We have the assets to make it happen at some point.

I would love to see Army take a shot at Hampus Lindholm at the TDL if he is available.

Lindholm - Parayko
Krug - Faulk

Is one hell of a top4 if you ask me.

 

[Ranksu]

I would love to see Army take a shot at Hampus Lindholm at the TDL if he is available.

Lindholm - Parayko
Krug - Faulk

Is one hell of a top4 if you ask me.

2nd pair is awful if you ask me.

 

[DoubleK81]

2nd pair is awful if you ask me.

But nobody asked you about your favorite Blues players.

 

[Bluesguru]

I would love to see Army take a shot at Hampus Lindholm at the TDL if he is available.

Lindholm - Parayko
Krug - Faulk

Is one hell of a top4 if you ask me.

Nice idea there. Sounds good. I like it.

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

I would love to see Army take a shot at Hampus Lindholm at the TDL if he is available.

Lindholm - Parayko
Krug - Faulk

Is one hell of a top4 if you ask me.

That would be fun to watch. Lindholm and Fowler were so wasted on the Ducks. I keep hoping they'd get traded or refuse to re-sign there, but alas, most of their best years have been squandered.

 

[Ranksu]

But nobody asked you about your favorite Blues players.

I like Faulk and Krug as player, but I hate their contracts. They are 2-3.5mill.$ overpaid.

 

[Blueston]

I like Faulk and Krug as player, but I hate their contracts. They are 2-3.5mill.$ overpaid.

Have you seen D contracts this summer? Faulk and Krug are almost value contracts at this point.

 

[Brian39]

I like Faulk and Krug as player, but I hate their contracts. They are 2-3.5mill.$ overpaid.

Then stop saying stupid shit like

2nd pair is awful if you ask me.

Those two statements are not compatible. If you believe that they are $3-$4.5M players, then they should be just fine as a 2nd pairing.

They put up adequate possession/underlying metrics in a top pairing role this past season and their actual results were significantly positive. Nothing about their actual performance suggests that they would be an awful 2nd pair and the 662 minutes of data we have of them together indicates that they are a low-end 1st pair. The cap commitment to keep a long term top 4 of Lindholm, Parayko, Faulk, and Krug is untenable, but it is idiotic to act like the 2nd pairing would be awful if we went down that road.

You and I are in full agreement that the decision to move on from Petro was terrible. You and I are in full agreement that Faulk and Krug for $13M long term is a much worse outcome than Petro at $8.5-9M long term and whatever else we could choose to do with the remaining $4-4.5M. But that doesn't mean that Faulk and Krug are awful in whatever role you put them in. You can build plenty of damn good bluelines that include Faulk/Krug. The issue is how their contracts limit your ability to do that.

 

[Ranksu]

Then stop saying stupid shit like



Those two statements are not compatible. If you believe that they are $3-$4.5M players, then they should be just fine as a 2nd pairing.

They put up adequate possession/underlying metrics in a top pairing role this past season and their actual results were significantly positive. Nothing about their actual performance suggests that they would be an awful 2nd pair and the 662 minutes of data we have of them together indicates that they are a low-end 1st pair. The cap commitment to keep a long term top 4 of Lindholm, Parayko, Faulk, and Krug is untenable, but it is idiotic to act like the 2nd pairing would be awful if we went down that road.

You and I are in full agreement that the decision to move on from Petro was terrible. You and I are in full agreement that Faulk and Krug for $13M long term is a much worse outcome than Petro at $8.5-9M long term and whatever else we could choose to do with the remaining $4-4.5M. But that doesn't mean that Faulk and Krug are awful in whatever role you put them in. You can build plenty of damn good bluelines that include Faulk/Krug. The issue is how their contracts limit your ability to do that.

I agree almost.

Plenty of damn good bluelines if you need to sheltered both of them. I see Faulk did step up last season what comes defensive game, but still it leaves Krug which needs better to pair what Faulk brings at table.

What if Faulk falls what he is known and his produce normally level? We saw he did outperform his normal level at first half of season and than hit wall when competitive/schedule got tougher, like I predicted.

People are too naive to see how weak our d-core really are currently.

But at least I can beat dead horse when season progress and both of Krug and Faulk will be exposed badly. Full 82 game season doesn't leave anything what people can't defend, it shows our true level what is our D-core made of.

 

[Reality Czech]

Then stop saying stupid shit like



Those two statements are not compatible. If you believe that they are $3-$4.5M players, then they should be just fine as a 2nd pairing.

They put up adequate possession/underlying metrics in a top pairing role this past season and their actual results were significantly positive. Nothing about their actual performance suggests that they would be an awful 2nd pair and the 662 minutes of data we have of them together indicates that they are a low-end 1st pair. The cap commitment to keep a long term top 4 of Lindholm, Parayko, Faulk, and Krug is untenable, but it is idiotic to act like the 2nd pairing would be awful if we went down that road.

You and I are in full agreement that the decision to move on from Petro was terrible. You and I are in full agreement that Faulk and Krug for $13M long term is a much worse outcome than Petro at $8.5-9M long term and whatever else we could choose to do with the remaining $4-4.5M. But that doesn't mean that Faulk and Krug are awful in whatever role you put them in. You can build plenty of damn good bluelines that include Faulk/Krug. The issue is how their contracts limit your ability to do that.

I'm not sure who you were quoting, although I can imagine considering I only have a couple people on my ignore list. It's silly that people insist on repeating the same "arguments" over and over again for a year thinking they will change anyone's opinion the 100th time they repeat themselves.

I look at Faulk and Krug as basically 2a and 2b defensemen who had to become 1a and 1b defensemen last year due to the absence of Parayko for most of the year. That's a pretty solid top 3, but I feel like some people are underestimating the loss of Parayko. If Parayko had been available to take on the heaviest defensive load then I don't think fans would have any reason to complain about Faulk and Krug. They honestly don't have any reason to complain about Faulk as he had a great year and basically proved he is a legit first pairing defenseman. Krug could certainly play better, but he wasn't nearly as bad as some biased fans claim. Boston did just fine with him as their #2 or #3 so obviously Krug can succeed in that role.

The only thing I slightly disagree with is the assumption that Petro + another $4 million guy would be better. Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't but that depends on who it would be and how much Petro declines over the length of his contract. It's not just about which player fans and the GM want, it's about who is available and who actually wants to play in St. Louis. With 31 other teams competing for the same players, it's not like Army can just snap his fingers and make a top 4 guy sign with us. That's why I think Army locked up Faulk, Krug and even Scandella when he did, because if you pass on a guy who's willing to sign then there is no guarantee a better option will materialize soon after.

 

[Ranksu]

I'm not sure who you were quoting, although I can imagine considering I only have a couple people on my ignore list. It's silly that people insist on repeating the same "arguments" over and over again for a year thinking they will change anyone's opinion the 100th time they repeat themselves.

I look at Faulk and Krug as basically 2a and 2b defensemen who had to become 1a and 1b defensemen last year due to the absence of Parayko for most of the year. That's a pretty solid top 3, but I feel like some people are underestimating the loss of Parayko. If Parayko had been available to take on the heaviest defensive load then I don't think fans would have any reason to complain about Faulk and Krug. They honestly don't have any reason to complain about Faulk as he had a great year and basically proved he is a legit first pairing defenseman. Krug could certainly play better, but he wasn't nearly as bad as some biased fans claim. Boston did just fine with him as their #2 or #3 so obviously Krug can succeed in that role.

The only thing I slightly disagree with is the assumption that Petro + another $4 million guy would be better. Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't but that depends on who it would be and how much Petro declines over the length of his contract. It's not just about which player fans and the GM want, it's about who is available and who actually wants to play in St. Louis. With 31 other teams competing for the same players, it's not like Army can just snap his fingers and make a top 4 guy sign with us. That's why I think Army locked up Faulk, Krug and even Scandella when he did, because if you pass on a guy who's willing to sign then there is no guarantee a better option will materialize soon after.

Read this after 2-3 years.

 

[Brian39]

The only thing I slightly disagree with is the assumption that Petro + another $4 million guy would be better. Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't but that depends on who it would be and how much Petro declines over the length of his contract. It's not just about which player fans and the GM want, it's about who is available and who actually wants to play in St. Louis. With 31 other teams competing for the same players, it's not like Army can just snap his fingers and make a top 4 guy sign with us. That's why I think Army locked up Faulk, Krug and even Scandella when he did, because if you pass on a guy who's willing to sign then there is no guarantee a better option will materialize soon after.

We watched Petro drag around #4 or #5 caliber D men on the top pairing for years. In his last 3 seasons here his two most frequent partners were Eddy and Gunnar (1950 of his 2348 even strength minutes in his last 3 years here were with those two). Our top pair for those 3 seasons was absolutely better than the Krug/Faulk top pairing this year. Both by actual results and underlying metrics. We chose to move on from Eddy over monetary disputes, but there is pretty much zero doubt that we could have extended him if we had offered him the contract he got in Montreal. Even if we hadn't, there is pretty much zero doubt that we could have found a Gunnar-level type player for $4M a year.

One of the things that makes Petro so special is that he can give you an average to above average top pairing without needing a partner who is a good top 4 caliber guy. You can give him a defensively sound #4/#5 tweener D man, throw them out there in a fairly-offensive (but not sheltered) usage role against top 6 competition and watch them dominate possession while Petro scores at a 12 goal and 35 point pace at even strength. Or you can pair him with a legit top 4 guy and have them play the overwhelming shutdown role and watch Petro put up moderately good possession numbers while pacing for 7 goals and 33 points at even strength like he did in the 3 years where he was paired with Bo. Before that we watched Petro be a consistent 50 point guy with great possession numbers on a top pairing with Carlo Colaiacovo.

This isn't theoretical. We have an overwhelmingly large sample size where Petro and whoever he played with was a better pairing than Krug/Faulk. When Petro plus any of Carlo/Bo/Eddy/Gunnar gives you a better pairing than Krug/Faulk, then I don't think it is at all an assumption that Petro +$4M in cap space will net you a better top pairing than Krug/Faulk.

Edit: Anyway, we've probably gotten way off topic. The user I was responding to was talking about Krug/Faulk being an awful 2nd pair, which is a massively different conversation than whether those 2 are a better use of cap space than Petro and $4M. My frustration is about the conflation of "they are overpaid" and "they can't play hockey at all."

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, that's the frustrating part about Petro leaving. Petro+random $4M partner is better than Krug+Faulk. And Krug+Faulk comes with the same term/decline that Petro was going to come with.

 

[Blanick]

The constant Pietrangelo talk on this board is what frustrates me. I don't think you are going to find many Blues fans that weren't upset about him leaving but it has been nearly a year. Every comment that could/needed to be made about the Pietrangelo situation has been made ad nauseum. We can't help ourselves and have to constantly circle back and repeat the same comments over and over again as a way to voice our displeasure with some current event like we think it is going to somehow change something. Pietrangelo is gone, it sucks but I got over it, when are the rest of you?

If you absolutely need something to rage about how about Army not trading away expiring UFAs at the last trade deadline when it was clear that last years team wasn't going to go very far in the playoffs. Schwartz has made it clear he wanted to test UFA and we didn't even know if we would have space for Hoffman or Bozak. We could have at bare minimum got another 1st, 2nd and possible 3rd trading those 3.

 

[Brian39]

If you absolutely need something to rage about how about Army not trading away expiring UFAs at the last trade deadline when it was clear that last years team wasn't going to go very far in the playoffs. Schwartz has made it clear he wanted to test UFA and we didn't even know if we would have space for Hoffman or Bozak. We could have at bare minimum got another 1st, 2nd and possible 3rd trading those 3.

I think that is an unrealistic maximum for what we could have gotten for those 3. Berube absolutely cratered Hoffman's value by using him in just about the worst possible deployment until the trade deadline. Hoffman was moved from the 2nd PP unit to the top unit midway through the first game we played post-deadline. Our PP was 23rd in the league on deadline day and we were still not using him to try to fix it. Everything we did with Hoffman decreased his value as a rental trade.

Schwartz returned from injury 3 weeks before the trade deadline and looked awful in his return. 5 points and a -4 in 12 games. Who's paying a 1st for that? And would they be on Schwartz's 15 team no-trade list? Schwartz had little incentive to go to another team shortly before UFA when most of his value in UFA was from his past body of work.

Bozak returned around the same time and looked decent in a 3rd line role upon his return. But he certainly wasn't returning a 1st.

Excluding the very-much-non-rental Mantha trade, only two 1sts and three 2nds changed hands at the deadline this year. One of those 2nds also required the receiving team to send a 3rd round pick the other way, so it wasn't a pure 2nd in value. It was a buyer's market this year and the 2 teams who ultimately gave up 1sts (Toronto and Tampa) targeted players with different skillsets than the ones we potentially would have been selling. Maybe you could argue that the Leafs would have preferred Schwartz over Foligno, but the traits they talked about loving in Foligno weren't Schwartz's strengths.

I think you are vastly overestimating what the market was like had we been sellers at the deadline. And I also think that there is value (both in revenue and organizational credibility) in making the playoffs than selling at the deadline 2 years removed from winning the Cup. I also think that the odds are extremely high that we have Bozak on our roster this upcoming season, which probably isn't the case if we had flipped him at the deadline last year.

 

[Reality Czech]

We watched Petro drag around #4 or #5 caliber D men on the top pairing for years. In his last 3 seasons here his two most frequent partners were Eddy and Gunnar (1950 of his 2348 even strength minutes in his last 3 years here were with those two). Our top pair for those 3 seasons was absolutely better than the Krug/Faulk top pairing this year. Both by actual results and underlying metrics. We chose to move on from Eddy over monetary disputes, but there is pretty much zero doubt that we could have extended him if we had offered him the contract he got in Montreal. Even if we hadn't, there is pretty much zero doubt that we could have found a Gunnar-level type player for $4M a year.

One of the things that makes Petro so special is that he can give you an average to above average top pairing without needing a partner who is a good top 4 caliber guy. You can give him a defensively sound #4/#5 tweener D man, throw them out there in a fairly-offensive (but not sheltered) usage role against top 6 competition and watch them dominate possession while Petro scores at a 12 goal and 35 point pace at even strength. Or you can pair him with a legit top 4 guy and have them play the overwhelming shutdown role and watch Petro put up moderately good possession numbers while pacing for 7 goals and 33 points at even strength like he did in the 3 years where he was paired with Bo. Before that we watched Petro be a consistent 50 point guy with great possession numbers on a top pairing with Carlo Colaiacovo.

This isn't theoretical. We have an overwhelmingly large sample size where Petro and whoever he played with was a better pairing than Krug/Faulk. When Petro plus any of Carlo/Bo/Eddy/Gunnar gives you a better pairing than Krug/Faulk, then I don't think it is at all an assumption that Petro +$4M in cap space will net you a better top pairing than Krug/Faulk.

Edit: Anyway, we've probably gotten way off topic. The user I was responding to was talking about Krug/Faulk being an awful 2nd pair, which is a massively different conversation than whether those 2 are a better use of cap space than Petro and $4M. My frustration is about the conflation of "they are overpaid" and "they can't play hockey at all."

I will grant you that Petro + mediocre defenseman "can" be just as good or better than a Krug/Faulk pairing but I don't agree it would always be the case. Petro also had a lot of support in the form of Bouwmeester, Parayko, etc. so he wasn't always asked to be THE guy on defense. Last year Faulk and Krug had to shoulder a pretty heavy load, with only Scandella to take away some of the tougher defensive responsibilities when Parayko was out. I'm not downplaying how good Petro is, just saying that our overall team defense was better in previous years compared to last year. And like I said before, I bet Krug and Faulk would have looked a lot better in the #2 and #3 roles as was originally intended.

So while I don't disagree with what you're saying, it's also possible that Faulk and Krug can play better than they did last year. I can see both sides of the debate, but at least once both sides knew Petro wasn't coming back the Blues made a move to stay competitive. Neither Krug or Faulk will ever be at Petro's level, but getting two top pair defensemen for $13 million isn't the worst thing in the world. I know some might disagree with that statement, but I'm pretty confident saying Faulk and Krug are among the top 60 d-men in the league.

I still think we need to wait and see how Petro's game holds up over the course of his contract before making any definitive statements on whether it was a mistake or not, but hey it could be worse. At least we aren't paying someone like Nurse $9.5 million a year for the next 8 years! Or Karlsson, Trouba or someone like that.

 

[Blueston]

I think that is an unrealistic maximum for what we could have gotten for those 3. Berube absolutely cratered Hoffman's value by using him in just about the worst possible deployment until the trade deadline. Hoffman was moved from the 2nd PP unit to the top unit midway through the first game we played post-deadline. Our PP was 23rd in the league on deadline day and we were still not using him to try to fix it. Everything we did with Hoffman decreased his value as a rental trade.

Schwartz returned from injury 3 weeks before the trade deadline and looked awful in his return. 5 points and a -4 in 12 games. Who's paying a 1st for that? And would they be on Schwartz's 15 team no-trade list? Schwartz had little incentive to go to another team shortly before UFA when most of his value in UFA was from his past body of work.

Bozak returned around the same time and looked decent in a 3rd line role upon his return. But he certainly wasn't returning a 1st.

Excluding the very-much-non-rental Mantha trade, only two 1sts and three 2nds changed hands at the deadline this year. One of those 2nds also required the receiving team to send a 3rd round pick the other way, so it wasn't a pure 2nd in value. It was a buyer's market this year and the 2 teams who ultimately gave up 1sts (Toronto and Tampa) targeted players with different skillsets than the ones we potentially would have been selling. Maybe you could argue that the Leafs would have preferred Schwartz over Foligno, but the traits they talked about loving in Foligno weren't Schwartz's strengths.

I think you are vastly overestimating what the market was like had we been sellers at the deadline. And I also think that there is value (both in revenue and organizational credibility) in making the playoffs than selling at the deadline 2 years removed from winning the Cup. I also think that the odds are extremely high that we have Bozak on our roster this upcoming season, which probably isn't the case if we had flipped him at the deadline last year.

Well said. Army is type of GM who puts value on player in situation like this and would rather keep him than deal him for less. I suspect if 1sts were on table he would have dealt any of the 3.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, our situation wasn't all that different from when we traded Stastny. We probably make the playoffs if we keep Stastny. The deals made this past deadline tell me that most teams weren't willing to give up much.