Proposal: Bottom line guys do we believe Krug is a #1D?

Assuming Krug is a #1D should we go all-in to sign him?


  • Total voters
    84

Marky9er

Registered User
Jan 30, 2008
7,476
729
  • Like
Reactions: kliq

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
There was talk of this a few months ago and Chatham is kinda/sorta closer to Detroit, but Toronto makes a lot more sense for him. Especially considering this:


I live in Windsor, and Chatham is about an hour away from Detroit, 3 hours away from TO. With that said, its not exactly easy to cross the border right now.
 

Marky9er

Registered User
Jan 30, 2008
7,476
729
I live in Windsor, and Chatham is about an hour away from Detroit, 3 hours away from TO. With that said, its not exactly easy to cross the border right now.
Exactly. They get a condo downtown and they will have luxury, peace of mind regarding healthcare, and an appreciating investment.
 

Retire91

Stevey Y you our Guy
May 31, 2010
6,135
1,563
Krug and St Loius is a good fit, another contending team that he can play behind in his specialist niche roll. Part of me wanted him to sign here just for the told you so discussions for 7 years but I think most of us knew Yzerman wasn't going to make that mistake. Glad this discussion can be put to bed.

LOL at Rafalski comparisons. Rafalski was added at 34 to a complete team that was still contending for the cup. He had a track record as a number 1 D taking over after Stevens phased out and Niedermeyer moved on. Rafalski at 34 was added to a team that was going for it, and not in the get in and anything can happen days. A time when Lidstrom was still playing prime hockey you had Stuart and someone was needed to replace Jiri Fischer. How on earth Rafaski got brought into this is a total head scratcher. Krug would get destroyed on this team and the only comparison is their offense and their size.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,200
14,889
crease
Wow, I'd forgotten that Rafalski was 34 when they signed him.

He did start his career late though. He played his first season at 26.

Even I was surprised his deal was for 12% of the cap, too.

I think we've really changed how we view signings in the last decade. Some of it for the better. Some of it overreaction.

Krug just signed for 8% of the cap and is 5 years younger at the time of signing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

Reality Check

Registered User
May 28, 2008
16,696
2,459
Krug would be a #1 on this team because they are that bad.

If Detroit wasn't that far away from being a playoff team, maybe you roll the dice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14ari13

Shaman464

No u
May 1, 2009
10,211
4,420
Boston, MA
How tuned in was everyone to the 2006 Devils, eh? Things have sure changed regarding coverage and how we view things.

They signed a 34-year-old Rafalski to 12% of their salary cap.

You tell me a 34-year-old today folks would want to sign to a 5 year deal at $9.78 million per year.

Very different situation. First there wasn't any retirement penalty. Second, Detroit because of how the CBA was restructured got a ton of benefit from lowered cap hits and new UFA rules that kept two of the best centers in the league on very cap friendly contracts. Imagine the flexibility at team like Toronto would have if contracts were like they were after the first CBA and stars were playing for almost literal peanuts in the first two contracts.
 

BinCookin

Registered User
Feb 15, 2012
6,160
1,377
London, ON
Names I've seen used in this thread to describe top pairing D men.

Edler, Rafalski.

Edler is the top minute D man in Vancouver. He provides O and D.
Rafalski was a top minute D man in NJ. He provided O and D.

Chara has been doing this in Boston, not Krug.
Also in St. Louis... Guess who's going to be their #1 line D man now that Pietro is gone.... That's right Justin Faulk.

Krug is a great player. But He needs to be used like Quinn Hughes or Tyson Barrie.
Holland isn't going to be playing Barrie 26-27 min a night... That's Darnell Nurse.

Lets see if I am right about Faulk being #1 in minutes or Maybe even Parayko.
As I bet Krug will be #3 in Minutes in St. Louis.

Bottom line is we need that top minute pairing guy a lot more than Krug. Krug is a luxury that we can't use right...because we would put him into the #1 role... and I do not think that would go well.
 

BinCookin

Registered User
Feb 15, 2012
6,160
1,377
London, ON
That will be Moritz Seider, and it will happen faster than anyone notices.

I hope you are right, but I would not put his name in there in PEN right now.
And I wouldn't bet the success of our franchise on it.

P.S. my perspective on all prospects no matter where we drafted them:

Cool, Potential and Promise... Hope they develop into the player we want, but I am keeping my expectations low. So when / if they under perform etc... I will not be all that disappointed.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,076
Tampere, Finland
Funny:

Krug could be the "hossa" for Bruins, where Grzelzyk is the "franzen" for them.

Lesser home-grown player, taking the Krug-duties for cheaper. Saves cap for another position (signed Craig Smith...)
 

ArmChairGM89

Registered User
Dec 10, 2019
1,552
1,034
I got duped again. I would request that the question proposed in the title be the same as the one above the poll. I should pay closer attention but still. I don’t even know what to make of the poll results as many people presumable have a different answer to both questions.
 

Ghost of Ethan Hunt

The Official Ghost of Space Ghosts Monkey
Jun 23, 2018
8,733
5,092
Top Secret Moon Base
21 Fantasy Hockey Rambles


10. Torey Krug, it sure seemed like that Blues signing came out of nowhere, right?
Anyway, the Blues’ power play was very good last year, coming in third in goals/60 minutes. The year before, they were 11th. Now, Boston should still have the better top PP unit, even with Vladimir Tarasenko back in the mix, but I don’t think this is a situation where Krug crashes down to like 15 PPPs. I still think 20-25 is reasonable, but that’s a far cry from the 34 PPPs/82 games Krug averaged over the last three years.
The real question is how much ice time they give him. Krug has never skated 22 minutes or more per game for a full season while Alex Pietrangelo has never skated fewer than 22 minutes per game for a full season (or, at least not since his nine-game stint in 2009-10). Do they just hand him 24-25 minutes a night, or do other players pick up the slack? My guess is it’s the latter, so if Krug averages 21 minutes a game for the Blues, a team that should be lower-scoring at all strengths than the Bruins, those routine 50-point seasons are not so routine anymore.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,076
Tampere, Finland
So, from

LD Gunnarsson - RD Pietrangelo
LD Scandella - RD Parayko (Scandella replaced LD Bouwmeester after injury)
LD Dunn - RD Faulk
-------------
7th RD Bortuzzo

They will go to:

LD Krug - RD Parayko
LD Scandella - RD Faulk
LD Dunn - D Gunnarsson
-----------------
7th RD Bortuzzo

I think there's some unused minutes in Justin Faulk, who was forced to play on his off-side with all those righties.

But it's just different defensive package in general. I think there's also some untapped potential in Colton Parayko. He could become their new Norris Caliber guy.
 

rbartnik

Registered User
Mar 9, 2019
93
95
So you don't sign good players unless you have the perfect players already in place?

Given Krug's age compared to Rafalski, we'd have 5 years to add a partner for Krug for the analogy to come full circle.

I said nothing of the sort. The thread is "Do we believe Krug is a #1D", not, "Should we sign Krug?"

We didn't sign Rafalski to be a #1. We already had one. We signed him to compliment Lidstrom and that's pretty much the last time our powerplay was good.
 

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,735
14,704
Sweden
I said nothing of the sort. The thread is "Do we believe Krug is a #1D", not, "Should we sign Krug?"

We didn't sign Rafalski to be a #1. We already had one. We signed him to compliment Lidstrom and that's pretty much the last time our powerplay was good.
2014-15 though.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,753
4,569
Cleveland
I said nothing of the sort. The thread is "Do we believe Krug is a #1D", not, "Should we sign Krug?"

We didn't sign Rafalski to be a #1. We already had one. We signed him to compliment Lidstrom and that's pretty much the last time our powerplay was good.

Well, the thread title and the question asked in the poll aren't the same question. The question actually asked is if we think Krug is a #1 should we sign him, not if he is.

This isn't directed solely at you, but would we have really signed Krug to be our #1? He would have been our highest paid D, but there is zero reason to start giving him the toughest D assignments just because of that, especially when we would have had Dekeyser and Nemeth also playing his side behind him. He wouldn't have been needed on the PK, either. He wouldn't have needed to see his IT bumped unnecessarily to 25 minutes just because.

Instead, the Wings could have treated him pretty similar to how Boston did. Not to the extent that Boston did, because the Wings just don't get enough ozone starts to tilt Krug's numbers that far, but Blashill still could have picked his spots quite a bit and fed Krug and a ton of PP time.
 

OgeeOgelthorpe

Baldina
Feb 29, 2020
16,999
17,978
So, from

LD Gunnarsson - RD Pietrangelo
LD Scandella - RD Parayko (Scandella replaced LD Bouwmeester after injury)
LD Dunn - RD Faulk
-------------
7th RD Bortuzzo

They will go to:

LD Krug - RD Parayko
LD Scandella - RD Faulk
LD Dunn - D Gunnarsson
-----------------
7th RD Bortuzzo

I think there's some unused minutes in Justin Faulk, who was forced to play on his off-side with all those righties.

But it's just different defensive package in general. I think there's also some untapped potential in Colton Parayko. He could become their new Norris Caliber guy.

I think that St. Louis basically dropped themselves from true contender status by swapping Pietrangelo, a true #1 all situations defenseman to Krug, a PP specialist. All to save what, a couple million dollars per year?

Can Justin Faulk be better? Maybe, and I think this is the biggest variable. I like the talent level but there's some games he makes Madison Bowey level mistakes.

I don't think Colton Parayko is as good as he's made out to be on these boards. Playing with Bouwmeester helped him considerably and they worked well as a pair. After Bouwmeester went down I wasn't too impressed with Parayko's overall play. It's like the Lidstrom effect to a lesser degree; anyone, even Dandeneault, looked good playing with him. Bouwmeester became a really steady guy defensively in Calgary and St. Louis and I think he elevated Parayko more than the other way around.

I wouldn't be surprised to see St. Louis being considerably worse defensively and finishing as a 5-8 team in the Western Conference for the next couple of years because of this move.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,840
8,558
Well, the thread title and the question asked in the poll aren't the same question. The question actually asked is if we think Krug is a #1 should we sign him, not if he is.

This isn't directed solely at you, but would we have really signed Krug to be our #1? He would have been our highest paid D, but there is zero reason to start giving him the toughest D assignments just because of that, especially when we would have had Dekeyser and Nemeth also playing his side behind him. He wouldn't have been needed on the PK, either. He wouldn't have needed to see his IT bumped unnecessarily to 25 minutes just because.

Instead, the Wings could have treated him pretty similar to how Boston did. Not to the extent that Boston did, because the Wings just don't get enough ozone starts to tilt Krug's numbers that far, but Blashill still could have picked his spots quite a bit and fed Krug and a ton of PP time.
Do I think the usage you described would be sensible for Krug? Yes.
But do I then think that the contract required to get him here would have been sensible for a player with that usage? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbartnik

rbartnik

Registered User
Mar 9, 2019
93
95
Well, the thread title and the question asked in the poll aren't the same question. The question actually asked is if we think Krug is a #1 should we sign him, not if he is.

This is a fair point. I'll admit I didn't read the poll question, just the thread title.

What I'm hearing is that you'd see Krug as a specialist, in which case...

Do I think the usage you described would be sensible for Krug? Yes.
But do I then think that the contract required to get him here would have been sensible for a player with that usage? No.

Yeah, this. I would've liked to see him suit up for us, but it feels like it'd be too much money considering the state of the rest of our defense. It'd be a different story if Seider was legit and already playing big minutes.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->