Blues Trade Proposals 2020-21 - Part II

[MissouriMook]

That's making ... some kind of a point there.

The point that you (apparently) missed is that it wasn't like Krug was a dumpster dive or a case of Army going out on a limb. He was literally the #2 rated UFA defenseman behind Petro in the offseason, so when it became apparent we weren't going to be able to re-sign the #1 guy, he moved on to the #2 guy who, quite frankly, checked a lot of boxes at the time in terms of past performance, QB-ing a successful PP, and fixing the handedness issue that was still present with Parayko and Faulk still on the right side.

There really wasn't a need to be an ass about it - either ask a question if you don't understand or move along without comment. If you have a point or a thoughtful response, make one instead posting some sarcastic statement that was clearly intended to do nothing more than embarrass another poster.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The point that you (apparently) missed is that it wasn't like Krug was a dumpster dive or a case of Army going out on a limb. He was literally the #2 rated UFA defenseman behind Petro in the offseason, so when it became apparent we weren't going to be able to re-sign the #1 guy, he moved on to the #2 guy who, quite frankly, checked a lot of boxes at the time in terms of past performance, QB-ing a successful PP, and fixing the handedness issue that was still present with Parayko and Faulk still on the right side.

There really wasn't a need to be an ass about it - either ask a question if you don't understand or move along without comment. If you have a point or a thoughtful response, make one instead posting some sarcastic statement that was clearly intended to do nothing more than embarrass another poster.

1. I was underscoring that Krug being the #2 defenseman on the market was an indictment of how thin the FA market was on defense. I wasn't being an ass about it. I don't always feel a need to spell out every point; sometimes, sarcastic comments work just fine. If you think that it embarrasses another poster, ... well, when (if) I go down that route, it'll be pretty plainly evident and more than well earned.

2. At risk of starting an argument over Pietrangelo in a 1,007th thread: Pietrangelo was unsigned and was still in St. Louis when we signed Krug. Until we tendered a contract offer to Krug and he signed it, we could have still circled back to Pietrangelo and tried to get a deal done at any point in there. Armstrong elected to move on to his identified target and inked Krug within 8 hours of free agency opening, which closed the door on Pietrangelo returning. [Further discussion on this should probably go in one of the other 1,006 threads where we've .]

3. Krug checked the offensive boxes and the handedness issue. He was a glaring potential liability on the actual defensive side of the game - that thing that made us pretty damn tough to play against for a season and a half and won us a Cup. It was a concern for a number of people, but we were told those concerns were overblown and his offensive game would more than make up for it. Watching most of this season, I see a guy who gets muscled off pucks easily and gets abused some nights on defense. But, he plays the correct side and one of these days that offense will kick in. We've got another 6 years, somewhere in there will be fine. He'll fit in eventually. Not like we have a middle-aged core that's getting older and no real prospect system to fill in as guys age so we can keep the window open for years and years, and that we really might be looking at a year or two more at most before the window slams shut. We've got time.

4. A roster is not a set of computer accessories that are plug-and-play. It was not evident where Krug fit on this team. Still isn't. We hope he fits with Faulk, but Faulk has his own issues. Faulk is better than he was last year, still not "gosh, he could take Parayko's place while Parayko takes Pietrangelo's place" caliber, but at least he's not "geez, I'd rather see Bortuzzo and Gunnarsson" caliber like he was at times last season. Throw in that Perunovich is also 5' 9" and there's concerns about how he'll handle playing NHL-style defenses and that his game is predicated on offense, and I'd ask why we need both - and if we want one of them, do we want the one who's still never logged a pro game so we don't know what he might be (meaning we don't need Krug), or the one who we know has defensive issues and is signed for another 6 years (meaning we don't need Perunovich).

 

[Celtic Note]

To me, this has zip to do with what happened with Pietrangelo. It's on Krug to be whoever he was supposed to be - which would start with being who he's been career-to-date and especially the last few seasons. Who knows how much better he'd be if this team didn't have other issues. I just know well, he needs a season to fit in is a poor excuse in my book.


For his career, yes - he's averaging 52 points per 82. The last 3 years? He's closer to 65 points per 82. That means he'd be at about 34 points through 43 GP. Then you realize the last 4 years, on the PP he had 25, 24, 30 and 28 points. This year, he's got 8. On that per-game pace from the last 4 years, we'd expect him to have 16 PP points right now. That was supposed to be the draw: his defense would be made up by his offense (which would take pressure off the need to always be playing defense) and his PP prowess would make us more dangerous there. It's not. His offense is spotty, and his defense is as not good as some feared.

If, based on his age, we "can't expect too much more than what we are seeing now from him offensively" [which is a 44-point pace over a full season - but let's say it's 52 for the benefit of this] then this contract is going to be a massive albatross in a couple years, especially since we'd expect his offense to decline as he continues to get older.

This is all fair to bring up. The numbers do look better for his potential and worse for how far he is away from it with the more recent sampling. I would argue they were likely to go down based on the transition to a team that has a less dynamic power play, but not to the level of drop off we have seen. I think it’s still also fair to ask if more additional offense on the PP would make us happy with the player in relation to his role on the team now and in the future? A 44 point pace for a defenseman is still very good. But, it’s his play without the puck and even on the breakout that leave a lot to be desired. Will those aspects get better to the point where he fits the team better? Will his offensive decline due to aging that is likely around the corner and will probably bring his point levels closer to his career averages in the not to distant future be made up for by learning the system or becoming more familiar with the tendencies of teammates?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This is all fair to bring up. The numbers do look better for his potential and worse for how far he is away from it with the more recent sampling. I would argue they were likely to go down based on the transition to a team that has a less dynamic power play, but not to the level of drop off we have seen. I think it’s still also fair to ask if more additional offense on the PP would make us happy with the player in relation to his role on the team now and in the future? A 44 point pace for a defenseman is still very good. But, it’s his play without the puck and even on the breakout that leave a lot to be desired. Will those aspects get better to the point where he fits the team better? Will his offensive decline due to aging that is likely around the corner and will probably bring his point levels closer to his career averages in the not to distant future be made up for by learning the system or becoming more familiar with the tendencies of teammates?

Looking at points is the easy thing, so yes - I think for some it would satisfy them. I think if he were better offensively, it would take pressure off him defensively and help us all-around. Not being a goal-scoring threat from the blueline is causing teams to sag off and defend the forwards, and he's not making them pay. When he coughs up the puck, he's just not good enough to overcome it. Is it the system? My eye-test says no. Yes, he can make some decent plays but there's times he just hangs on to the puck like he's waiting for help to show up and while he's standing there trying to decide the puck comes off his stick.

44 points for a defenseman is good. It's better than anyone we've had not wearing #27 for the last few years. But at $6.5 million per, he's got to be better than that.

 

[Xerloris]

Looking at points is the easy thing, so yes - I think for some it would satisfy them. I think if he were better offensively, it would take pressure off him defensively and help us all-around. Not being a goal-scoring threat from the blueline is causing teams to sag off and defend the forwards, and he's not making them pay. When he coughs up the puck, he's just not good enough to overcome it. Is it the system? My eye-test says no. Yes, he can make some decent plays but there's times he just hangs on to the puck like he's waiting for help to show up and while he's standing there trying to decide the puck comes off his stick.

44 points for a defenseman is good. It's better than anyone we've had not wearing #27 for the last few years. But at $6.5 million per, he's got to be better than that.

I've watched plenty of guys take the night off and coast around the ice but I don't ever see Krug doing that. He may make gaffs defensively which was to be expected but they're not for lack of effort. I'll take that any day over a lazy player that gives up on plays.

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

I always find it amusing when fans think they have some insight that career hockey people never considered.

Every trade or FA signing comes with some amount of risk, but it's a lot easier to criticize from a distance instead of being the one actually making these important decisions. The thing is, if you don't give out the occasional long-term contract then you'll never get any quality free agents because some other team likely will give them a long-term deal. Krug has been a disappointment so far, but Faulk has proved his worth this year and is doing as well as fans can reasonably expect.

Vegas certainly hasn't gotten their money's worth out of Petro this year, I'd expect more than .5 PPG and 2 power play points for all that cash he's getting. Maybe he'll have a Faulk-like bounce back next season but only time will tell.

gonna be hard to do as he's their 3rd best Dman right now and playing on the 2nd PP

 

[Celtic Note]

I appreciate effort, but it only matters so much. If you are working your tail off and nothing gets done, then at some point it just doesn’t matter. I am not just speaking to Krug here. There are other players too that do it.

I can’t stand laziness either. But, I would rather have lazy players that get things done than hardworking players that just spin their tires in mud. You sort of need both... hardworking and skilled players.

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

Krug is pacing at 43pts through 82 games. He averages a 52pt pace through 82 games over his career. So, he is down 9 points over 82 games. That is roughly 4.5pts through games played this season. If he had scored another 4-5 points would people think more positively of him or is it his overall play (namely defense) that has people wanting more?

I think that, based on his age, you can’t expect too much more than what we are seeing now from him offensively.

yeah.. I think they overestimated his defensive game. his offense has been fine.. but honestly, Dunn is outplaying him. that Dgame isn't gonna get better for him even next year or the one after that.. he just doesn't have the size and he's getting walked over in the dzone. and Faulk walked into a much tougher situation here

 

[Blueston]

I appreciate effort, but it only matters so much. If you are working your tail off and nothing gets done, then at some point it just doesn’t matter. I am not just speaking to Krug here. There are other players too that do it.

I can’t stand laziness either. But, I would rather have lazy players that get things done than hardworking players that just spin their tires in mud. You sort of need both... hardworking and skilled players.

I was looking at team stats earlier tonight and it's kinda amazing to see where Hoffman is at. As easy as he is to hate on- and I am guilty too- he has been much more productive than Schwartz or Tank or- for past month- Schenn. Some of it is bad puck luck but when you are paid like a star and played like a star, you need to be that star regardless.

 

[Celtic Note]

I was looking at team stats earlier tonight and it's kinda amazing to see where Hoffman is at. As easy as he is to hate on- and I am guilty too- he has been much more productive than Schwartz or Tank or- for past month- Schenn. Some of it is bad puck luck but when you are paid like a star and played like a star, you need to be that star regardless.

He is a strange one. He shows up on the sheet. But, he is terrible defensively.

 

[kimzey59]

Krug is pacing at 43pts through 82 games. He averages a 52pt pace through 82 games over his career. So, he is down 9 points over 82 games. That is roughly 4.5pts through games played this season. If he had scored another 4-5 points would people think more positively of him or is it his overall play (namely defense) that has people wanting more?

I think that, based on his age, you can’t expect too much more than what we are seeing now from him offensively.

Honestly, I think it's a lot more simple than all that: He's only scored 1 goal all year.
When people hear the phrase "offensive D man", they are expecting to see at least some goals.

And I definitely think Krug has more to offer in that particular arena. He's not an overly prolific goal scorer, but he can hover around the 10 goal mark. And I think he would get a LOT more leeway if he were in that neighborhood.

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

not sure how to make it happen, but man, would love to send Krug somewhere and sign Martinez/LV (FA after the season?)

 

[Reality Czech]

The point that you (apparently) missed is that it wasn't like Krug was a dumpster dive or a case of Army going out on a limb. He was literally the #2 rated UFA defenseman behind Petro in the offseason, so when it became apparent we weren't going to be able to re-sign the #1 guy, he moved on to the #2 guy who, quite frankly, checked a lot of boxes at the time in terms of past performance, QB-ing a successful PP, and fixing the handedness issue that was still present with Parayko and Faulk still on the right side.

There really wasn't a need to be an ass about it - either ask a question if you don't understand or move along without comment. If you have a point or a thoughtful response, make one instead posting some sarcastic statement that was clearly intended to do nothing more than embarrass another poster.

Great point. I wonder what the reaction would have been if Army hadn't signed anyone in the offseason. I'm guessing fans would have been angry. The signing made a lot of sense at the time, and the fact that Krug has had an underwhelming season doesn't change that. And he isn't playing as bad as some make it seem.

Dunn has definitely taken a step up this year, but he's a -7 while Krug is a +7 despite Krug playing 3 and a half minutes more per game (it also appears Dunn has a higher percentage of offensive zone starts - 60% - compared to Krug - 53%). I know +/- has its problems but that's a 14 point difference, so why are fans acting like Dunn is playing great while Krug is some huge defensive liability? Krug has the 3rd highest plus/minus on the team after ROR and Faulk, so it is possible he's not the defensive trainwreck some fans claim he is? Krug absolutely should score more goals than he currently has, but as Celtic said would an extra 3-4 goals be the difference between hero and zero?

 

[Frenzy31]

Great point. I wonder what the reaction would have been if Army hadn't signed anyone in the offseason. I'm guessing fans would have been angry. The signing made a lot of sense at the time, and the fact that Krug has had an underwhelming season doesn't change that. And he isn't playing as bad as some make it seem.

Dunn has definitely taken a step up this year, but he's a -7 while Krug is a +7 despite Krug playing 3 and a half minutes more per game (it also appears Dunn has a higher percentage of offensive zone starts - 60% - compared to Krug - 53%). I know +/- has its problems but that's a 14 point difference, so why are fans acting like Dunn is playing great while Krug is some huge defensive liability? Krug has the 3rd highest plus/minus on the team after ROR and Faulk, so it is possible he's not the defensive trainwreck some fans claim he is? Krug absolutely should score more goals than he currently has, but as Celtic said would an extra 3-4 goals be the difference between hero and zero?

I don’t disagree with you here. However, how much of the +/- is tied to playing w the ROR line on a consistent basis? Compared with Dunn, who is he typically pair with from the forward perspective? I would argue the only really consistently productive line we have had is the ROR line. The 2nd and 3rd lines have been jumbled messes offensively and defensively. Some of it is on Dunn, some of it is on the man to man defensive coverage.

Also, I would look at the splits. Who has been better over the past few months vs accumulative. Dunn was a dumpster fire earlier this season.

 

[Renard]

Have we not learned with Faulk that some guys, especially those that spent a long time in one system, sometimes need time to adjust?

Faulk had to play on his off wing his first year here, and I thought it was unfair to judge him on that year. But what has Krug had to adjust to that was comparable?

 

[Stealth JD]

Faulk had to play on his off wing his first year here, and I thought it was unfair to judge him on that year. But what has Krug had to adjust to that was comparable?

No Pasta, Bergeron or Marchand to whom to feed the puck.

 

[Reality Czech]

I don’t disagree with you here. However, how much of the +/- is tied to playing w the ROR line on a consistent basis? Compared with Dunn, who is he typically pair with from the forward perspective? I would argue the only really consistently productive line we have had is the ROR line. The 2nd and 3rd lines have been jumbled messes offensively and defensively. Some of it is on Dunn, some of it is on the man to man defensive coverage.

Also, I would look at the splits. Who has been better over the past few months vs accumulative. Dunn was a dumpster fire earlier this season.

That could be part of it, although I don't think defensemen always play with the same forward groups. Perhaps some more than others, though. I feel like Dobber Hockey used to show line combinations with all 5 players on the ice, but looks like they separate forwards and defensemen now so I don't know of another resource to find out.

In April, Dunn has been +2 and Krug +1. March they were both -6 (in a month where only ROR and Scandella were above zero on the Blues). So they are basically the same over the past two calendar months. I'm not taking anything away from Dunn, he's been very solid recently. Just wondering if Krug is really as bad defensively as some make it seem. Or does he benefit from playing with a rejuvenated Faulk? I would also assume that Faulk/Krug and the Scandella pair shared the main defensive responsibilities in Parayko's absence, rather than Chief relying on either pair completely. DobberHockey CAN tell me that Dunn has played 43% of the time with Marco (but almost exclusively in recent weeks), and perhaps that is one reason why Dunn has been playing much better of late. They seem to be a good fit together, maybe playing off each other's strengths.

Also, the fact that Krug is tied for 2nd on the team with 96 SOG and only has 1 goal is kind of ridiculous. Maybe it's his fault for not finding the back of the net, but if he was shooting at his career 4.8% rate he'd have 4-5 goals right now. He's only been below 3.8% one other time in his career. Poor shooting % aside, his overall point production is down and the Blues power play has been worse than last year, so he's not really making a positive difference there. However, he's still tied for 3rd on the team with 8 PPP so I wouldn't put our mediocre PP all on him. In terms of puck movement, he's been doing his job and I don't think his defense has been that bad. He just needs to correct his point production and he'll be the same Krug he's always been.

What site do you guys use for advanced stats? I can't seem to find one that includes QoC. I'd be curious to see the quality of competition Krug has faced this year relative to other Blues defensemen. Is he being sheltered to some degree or is he being asked to shoulder a bigger load than he ever did with Boston?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Great point. I wonder what the reaction would have been if Army hadn't signed anyone in the offseason. I'm guessing fans would have been angry. The signing made a lot of sense at the time, and the fact that Krug has had an underwhelming season doesn't change that. And he isn't playing as bad as some make it seem.

When the decision was made by whichever side one wants to blame that Pietrangelo wasn't coming back, someone had to come in as a replacement. We can discuss who it could/should have been, but the pickings were slim. After Krug, it's Tyson Barrie (right-handed), Kevin Shattenkirk (right ... and, we've done that experiment before), Erik Gustafsson (left), Sami Vatanen (right) and Jake Muzzin (left). There wasn't a hell of a lot out there.

Is Krug horrible? No. Is he playing like a $6.5 million defenseman? Um, no. It's not that he's terrible, just like Faulk isn't terrible. It's that between him, Faulk and Parayko they're making $18.625 million and counting $18.5 million on the cap, and you can't point to any of them and say "yeah, there's a true #1 defenseman this season." Faulk was playing more like a #1 early, he looked really good, but he's tailed off as time has gone on. It's like we got a pair of 3s and we're waiting to see what a healthy Parayko is. If he isn't a legit 1 ... well, look at Cup winners and find all of them who didn't have a true 1/2 on the blueline, someone explain what's going to be different here. And if Parayko does turn out to be a legit 1, will Armstrong pony up the necessary money for that?

I know +/- has its problems but that's a 14 point difference, so why are fans acting like Dunn is playing great while Krug is some huge defensive liability? Krug has the 3rd highest plus/minus on the team after ROR and Faulk, so it is possible he's not the defensive trainwreck some fans claim he is?

I know what you were trying to get at with these two statements, but seeing those two sentences back-to-back in reference to +/- as a valid stat is kind of funny.

Dunn can be really good offensively. He can be really not good defensively, which takes away from his offensive game. If he were to have some 20-42-62 kind of breakout season, maybe that changes things. Krug is getting used more on the defensive side, which historically he's not been used in. That's impacting his play. We talk about zone starts (which I think is generally overrated, but that's another discussion); Krug was 62.6% offensive in Boston over his career. He's been 53% here. The '15-16 season in Boston, he was 55.5% and it marked his then-lowest career goal output at 4. We also talk about shooting %, especially in relation to a couple forwards. This year, Krug's hit on 1 of his 97 shots on goal. If he were just at his Boston career average, he'd have 4 more goals. Doesn't sound like a lot, but that's 4 times where we're putting pressure on the opposition instead of having to play defense and us chasing them.

For whatever reason, Krug here isn't what Krug was in Boston. He's got to be that to make him worth that contract. If that's just getting luck shooting, if it's better usage, if it's better play from guys around him as well, whatever it is, something has to improve if he's going to find his game and be what we were told he would be.

 

[Reality Czech]

When the decision was made by whichever side one wants to blame that Pietrangelo wasn't coming back, someone had to come in as a replacement. We can discuss who it could/should have been, but the pickings were slim. After Krug, it's Tyson Barrie (right-handed), Kevin Shattenkirk (right ... and, we've done that experiment before), Erik Gustafsson (left), Sami Vatanen (right) and Jake Muzzin (left). There wasn't a hell of a lot out there.

Is Krug horrible? No. Is he playing like a $6.5 million defenseman? Um, no. It's not that he's terrible, just like Faulk isn't terrible. It's that between him, Faulk and Parayko they're making $18.625 million and counting $18.5 million on the cap, and you can't point to any of them and say "yeah, there's a true #1 defenseman this season." Faulk was playing more like a #1 early, he looked really good, but he's tailed off as time has gone on. It's like we got a pair of 3s and we're waiting to see what a healthy Parayko is. If he isn't a legit 1 ... well, look at Cup winners and find all of them who didn't have a true 1/2 on the blueline, someone explain what's going to be different here. And if Parayko does turn out to be a legit 1, will Armstrong pony up the necessary money for that?


I know what you were trying to get at with these two statements, but seeing those two sentences back-to-back in reference to +/- as a valid stat is kind of funny.

Dunn can be really good offensively. He can be really not good defensively, which takes away from his offensive game. If he were to have some 20-42-62 kind of breakout season, maybe that changes things. Krug is getting used more on the defensive side, which historically he's not been used in. That's impacting his play. We talk about zone starts (which I think is generally overrated, but that's another discussion); Krug was 62.6% offensive in Boston over his career. He's been 53% here. The '15-16 season in Boston, he was 55.5% and it marked his then-lowest career goal output at 4. We also talk about shooting %, especially in relation to a couple forwards. This year, Krug's hit on 1 of his 97 shots on goal. If he were just at his Boston career average, he'd have 4 more goals. Doesn't sound like a lot, but that's 4 times where we're putting pressure on the opposition instead of having to play defense and us chasing them.

For whatever reason, Krug here isn't what Krug was in Boston. He's got to be that to make him worth that contract. If that's just getting luck shooting, if it's better usage, if it's better play from guys around him as well, whatever it is, something has to improve if he's going to find his game and be what we were told he would be.

Regarding the first point, agree completely. There wasn't a lot out there. Perhaps Brodie would have been the ideal guy, but I am not sure there would have been a way to keep him out of Toronto if he really wanted to go there. In terms of who's a "true" #1 maybe some guys just need the opportunity to prove it. I think Faulk is playing well enough to earn his salary, Krug needs to step it up a bit.

Regarding the second, I said we can't assume too much from plus/minus. Was just making an observation. I mentioned a lot of your other points in my most recent post, so we're on the same page there. I don't think he's that far off from who he was in Boston aside from his goal/point production, however. Is it an aberration or has his game fallen off that much? I guess time will tell.

As a side note, I found the QoC chart on the same DobberHockey page I mentioned. Guess I should have checked there before asking! I'm no expert, but according to this chart Krug has faced the toughest competition among all Blues D this year? Am I missing something?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

That is really surprising to me. Faulk? Scandella? Parayko? OK, those make sense: two of those should be out against the toughest competition. Walman, Dunn on the other end? Yep, they probably shouldn't be up against the top lines of other teams. Krug should be down with Walman and Dunn, both on QoC and OZ%.

Bortuzzo being way down on QoC is surprising. Or maybe it isn't, because I don't know I've heard his name called 5 times beyond "here's the Blues lineup for tonight" in the last 5 games I've seen him play, which tells you how much impact he's having.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I'd believe it. He started the season with Parayko going up against other team's top lines then when Parayko went down Faulk stepped up into his spot and played with Krug. Krug has absolutely been our #1 LHD all year from a deployment perspective.

 

[Celtic Note]

I'd believe it. He started the season with Parayko going up against other team's top lines then when Parayko went down Faulk stepped up into his spot and played with Krug. Krug has absolutely been our #1 LHD all year from a deployment perspective.

Which is where I wonder about our roster construction, just like I wondered at the time of the signing. He really should be on the second pairing like Faulk, but who goes on the first pairing. We had Parayko penciled in there, but he isn’t performing well enough to see that deployment. Assuming he heals up, he still seems to be the heir apparent though with some raised eyebrows. On the left side who is the guy? Dunn and Scandella works pretty well. I am not certain that Scandella should be higher than 2nd pairing. Walman isn’t a top pairing guy. So really we are a shutdown D with a decent breakout pass away from a good D lineup.

The other unfortunate is that we have two D that should be sheltered in Krug and Dunn. But, you really can only shelter one successfully. This is similar to our forward group with Hoffman and Tarasenko. It’s harder to shelter two guys, one is relatively easy.

We really need one of each of those guys to go this off-season. It seems fairly obvious at forward who that guy is given contract status. On D the discussion seems to be similar, however there is a huge discrepancy dollar values of the contracts and the cost of the current D group and the contract cost of the shutdown D we need are not easily in sync unless we move Krug or do a big roster renovation that removes salary from the forward corps. I am not sure that make much sense as we cannot afford to lose scoring or defensive prowess from our forwards.

Enter conundrum, paradox, catch 22, etc.

 

[Stealth JD]

Which is where I wonder about our roster construction, just like I wondered at the time of the signing. He really should be on the second pairing like Faulk, but who goes on the first pairing. We had Parayko penciled in there, but he isn’t performing well enough to see that deployment. Assuming he heals up, he still seems to be the heir apparent though with some raised eyebrows. On the left side who is the guy? Dunn and Scandella works pretty well. I am not certain that Scandella should be higher than 2nd pairing. Walman isn’t a top pairing guy. So really we are a shutdown D with a decent breakout pass away from a good D lineup.

The other unfortunate is that we have two D that should be sheltered in Krug and Dunn. But, you really can only shelter one successfully. This is similar to our forward group with Hoffman and Tarasenko. It’s harder to shelter two guys, one is relatively easy.

We really need one of each of those guys to go this off-season. It seems fairly obvious at forward who that guy is given contract status. On D the discussion seems to be similar, however there is a huge discrepancy dollar values of the contracts and the cost of the current D group and the contract cost of the shutdown D we need are not easily in sync unless we move Krug or do a big roster renovation that removes salary from the forward corps. I am not sure that make much sense as we cannot afford to lose scoring or defensive prowess from our forwards.

Enter conundrum, paradox, catch 22, etc.

If you can find a taker for Tarasenko, whether at the Expansion draft or the Entry draft, do you bring back Hoffman at $6M and potentially upgrade that position at a savings of $1.5M/year? They're both similarly flawed and skilled; but one guy is producing and the other is an expensive question mark.

As for the defense - yeah...you can't shelter everyone. Somebody has to take those LHD minutes...but it's akin to being the tallest dwarf; which somehow seems fitting for Krug.

 

[Frenzy31]

Krug is what he is at this point and while +/- stat is not the ideal measurement. I think it is a good one when looking at stats between teammates. He has played against the oppositions top lines for the most part and is a + player on a team that isn't scoring. Is he ideal? No, not at all, but sometimes....

Despite having, what I consider our deepest forward line up, we are not really producing beyond the 1st line and Hoffman. If you told me at the begging of the season that the entire 2nd line would produce like hot garbage, I would have completely disagreed with you. They just are not scoring. Schwartz, Tarasenko, Schenn, line has to figure it out. If they could put up 1 goal between the 3 of them per game, we are in a much better positions (which is completely reasonable to expect). JK being hot and playing with them initially may have masked issues with that line, but. at some point they need to get it together.

As for the expansion draft, exposing Tarasenko may not be a bad idea. I would also expose Krug over Dunn at this point, just to adjusting the line up a bit and opening up cap space. If this team goes on a run and makes the playoffs and gives a solid effort in the first round, then Dunn would be exposed, but if not I really think we need to look at the make up a bit.

But, if we don't make the playoffs, then..... I think this is a good opportunity to dump a contact. And most importantly, I think Krug and or Tarasenko would be taken w/o adding or paying a price.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

If you can find a taker for Tarasenko, whether at the Expansion draft or the Entry draft, do you bring back Hoffman at $6M and potentially upgrade that position at a savings of $1.5M/year? They're both similarly flawed and skilled; but one guy is producing and the other is an expensive question mark.

As for the defense - yeah...you can't shelter everyone. Somebody has to take those LHD minutes...but it's akin to being the tallest dwarf; which somehow seems fitting for Krug.

Will we use Hoffman like he needs to be? If not, does it do us any good to sign him at whatever? This offseason really needs to be spent with a discussion on what system we're going to play and how (if) guys fit into that. From there, we can figure out roster construction. It doesn't do us any good to assemble pieces that don't mesh in whatever system we're going to play, and I'm starting to think that got overlooked this past offseason.