Dunn’s next contract

Blueston

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 4, 2016
18,700
19,283
Houston, TX
I think we’d get their 2nd rounder too. Unfortunately, nobody is going to want to Bozak and Allen without incentive especially with a flat cap.
Pass for me. Bozak I'd think has about neutral value, maybe slight negative at that contract but not much since he could be dealt at TDL for a pick. Allen I would expect has positive value given how good he played last year and that teams would think he can at least bea good 1b.
 

Mike Liut

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 12, 2008
19,281
8,825
Pass for me. Bozak I'd think has about neutral value, maybe slight negative at that contract but not much since he could be dealt at TDL for a pick. Allen I would expect has positive value given how good he played last year and that teams would think he can at least bea good 1b.



I just don’t see it. If I was a GM, I’m not taking either without incentive.
 

MissouriMook

Still just a Mook among men
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2014
7,812
8,138
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance over the ideas that we won't get anything for Bozak or Allen because no one has cap space, and that we're going to lose Pietrangelo this offseason because a bunch of teams will clear cap space if they need to in order to sign him.

Bozak and Allen absolutely both have positive value. Both could improve the roster of many, many teams in the league. Both are slightly overpaid for their appropriate role. We will not have to pay anything to get rid of either of them, let alone sacrifice Dunn to make a deal happen. While either may have returned a 2nd-3rd or a good prospect, we'll probably only be able to get a 3rd-4th or a decent prospect unless we take back money in an NHL contract or modest retention, but that's what happens when the cap goes flat. If Army moves Dunn, it will be because he believes that Perunovich is ready to step into the same role and he can get a premium for Dunn, not as a throw in to dump salary.
 

Robb_K

Registered User
Apr 26, 2007
20,980
11,134
NordHolandNethrlands
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance over the ideas that we won't get anything for Bozak or Allen because no one has cap space, and that we're going to lose Pietrangelo this offseason because a bunch of teams will clear cap space if they need to in order to sign him.

Bozak and Allen absolutely both have positive value. Both could improve the roster of many, many teams in the league. Both are slightly overpaid for their appropriate role. We will not have to pay anything to get rid of either of them, let alone sacrifice Dunn to make a deal happen. While either may have returned a 2nd-3rd or a good prospect, we'll probably only be able to get a 3rd-4th or a decent prospect unless we take back money in an NHL contract or modest retention, but that's what happens when the cap goes flat. If Army moves Dunn, it will be because he believes that Perunovich is ready to step into the same role and he can get a premium for Dunn, not as a throw in to dump salary.

Well said. THIS is exactly the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MissouriMook

Mike Liut

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 12, 2008
19,281
8,825
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance over the ideas that we won't get anything for Bozak or Allen because no one has cap space, and that we're going to lose Pietrangelo this offseason because a bunch of teams will clear cap space if they need to in order to sign him.

Bozak and Allen absolutely both have positive value. Both could improve the roster of many, many teams in the league. Both are slightly overpaid for their appropriate role. We will not have to pay anything to get rid of either of them, let alone sacrifice Dunn to make a deal happen. While either may have returned a 2nd-3rd or a good prospect, we'll probably only be able to get a 3rd-4th or a decent prospect unless we take back money in an NHL contract or modest retention, but that's what happens when the cap goes flat. If Army moves Dunn, it will be because he believes that Perunovich is ready to step into the same role and he can get a premium for Dunn, not as a throw in to dump salary.



I hope you’re right, but I don’t think so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluesXwinXtheXcup

DoubleK81

It's always something with these pricks.
Sep 10, 2010
2,466
2,742
PETRO SUCKS
Nobody has mentioned this that I saw, but the likelihood that there will be a no-penalty compliance buyout given to teams in the offseason is VERY high.
 

Mike Liut

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 12, 2008
19,281
8,825
You can always trade away a player with longer term that you don’t want to keep. That’s one type of incentive.


I’d like to keep everybody else. Not interested in moving somebody like Schwartz. I’d rather lock up Schwartz and Parayko than move them
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,762
14,675
Nobody has mentioned this that I saw, but the likelihood that there will be a no-penalty compliance buyout given to teams in the offseason is VERY high.
Last I saw, the owners were very against it. The Blues have also never bought anyone out, so I'm not completely sure our ownership would be up for essentially spending over the cap.
 

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,327
Erwin, TN
Nobody has mentioned this that I saw, but the likelihood that there will be a no-penalty compliance buyout given to teams in the offseason is VERY high.
Statements from the owners seemed to absolutely nix that option, last I'd heard. Has there been something new?
 

DoubleK81

It's always something with these pricks.
Sep 10, 2010
2,466
2,742
PETRO SUCKS
Last I saw, the owners were very against it. The Blues have also never bought anyone out, so I'm not completely sure our ownership would be up for essentially spending over the cap.

Statements from the owners seemed to absolutely nix that option, last I'd heard. Has there been something new?

I had not seen anything about the owners being against it, but I would bet that behind closed doors they are 100% for it.
 

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,327
Erwin, TN
I had not seen anything about the owners being against it, but I would bet that behind closed doors they are 100% for it.
Why would the owners be for it? It would mean they are spending more money. The statements from owner representatives have been adamant that there is no appetite to do that.

The purpose of compliance buyouts are to allow teams to adapt to a new or lower salary cap than before. Otherwise they’d be at a competitive disadvantage with contracts which were made prior to the cap. If the cap stays flat, it’s really not as big a deal as people are making it. Some teams budgeted for a bit higher, but that’s true every year. But there are no albatross contracts that date from a higher cap time or a pre-cap time. Every team can field a team with the same cap number as the year prior.

It was only some media and fan speculation that there would be compliance buyouts. I don’t think there is any substance to the idea.
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
I had not seen anything about the owners being against it, but I would bet that behind closed doors they are 100% for it.
It was discussed on 31 Thoughts a while back as well as in some Athletic articles. Brian Burke has talked about it a ton on Hockey Central.

The owners are 100% opposed to any compliance buyout where the money paid exists outside the 50/50 HRR split between the players and the owners, which is how compliance buyouts have always worked in the past. There is absolutely zero support from owners for increasing the total amount of money paid out to players over the next year. On the flip side of the equation, the players don't have much incentive to agree to compliance buyouts where the money does count against HRR.

With a flat cap, there isn't much incentive for a compliance buyout. The only way they make sense is with a significant reduction from the existing salary cap, which both sides seem determined to prevent. Some form of compliance buyout makes sense if a reduced cap necessitates them. Otherwise, they don't make much sense. Every comment and piece of news put out there suggests that both the league and PA support an agreement centered around a flat cap with some type of escrow/give-back agreement instead of a reduction to the cap with compliance buyouts.
 

High n Wide

Registered User
Feb 24, 2015
1,284
440
St. Louis
Well, does he get traded now

This was my first thought (well maybe second after realizing that Petro was gone) when I saw the trade. I think Dunn moves and we role Krug-Scandella-Gunnarsson/Mikkola on LD with Perunovich as a wild card.

I think you keep him, Krug alone isn't enough offense from our D for the way we're built.

I think Krug and Faulk is enough. Gives an offensive guy paired with a defensive guy on the top two pairings. I don’t expect much offense from the third pairing regardless. Perunovich coming in is another wild card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spektre

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,683
14,073
I don’t see where there is room for Dunn beyond next season. He doesn’t have a long future here. You are now committed to Krug, Parayko, Faulk and Scandella as your top 4. Mikkola is ready and deserves playing time. Perunovich is on the way and Bortuzzo is a good #6/7 guy.

Where is Dunn fitting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueston

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
Somewhere else. We just replaced Vince Dunn with a higher paid version of him.
I'm not wild about Krug and I agree that he replaces Dunn's role on the team. I don't think Krug will be worth the contract long term and in would have preferred to give a cost-controlled Dunn a season long shot in that role.

With all that said, Krug is currently at Dunn's potential ceiling. We replaced Dunn with a higher paid and better version of him.
 

Novacain

Registered User
Feb 24, 2012
4,362
4,875
I'm not wild about Krug and I agree that he replaces Dunn's role on the team. I don't think Krug will be worth the contract long term and in would have preferred to give a cost-controlled Dunn a season long shot in that role.

With all that said, Krug is currently at Dunn's potential ceiling. We replaced Dunn with a higher paid and better version of him.

And let Petro walk to boot. So yay, we upgraded on LD a bit to dismantle our depth at RD.
 

Linkens Mastery

Conductor of the TankTown Express
Jan 15, 2014
18,718
16,108
Hyrule
I don’t see where there is room for Dunn beyond next season. He doesn’t have a long future here. You are now committed to Krug, Parayko, Faulk and Scandella as your top 4. Mikkola is ready and deserves playing time. Perunovich is on the way and Bortuzzo is a good #6/7 guy.

Where is Dunn fitting?
I totally disagree about Scandella. His contract isn't that bad to toss on the bottom pairing if say Mikkola or Perunovich. And Scandella has a pretty movable contract if we find something better. But, I also don't see Dunn making it to opening day as a Blue. I feel like he's going to back packaged with Bozak to make room for a forward. Maybe even Pietrangelo if he panics.
 

Falco Lombardi

Registered User
Nov 17, 2011
23,176
8,467
St. Louis, MO
I think you keep him, Krug alone isn't enough offense from our D for the way we're built.

Who is playing defense?

Currently we’re set up to rely on Parayko and Scandella to cover literally all the defensive responsibilities while there are now 3 liabilities on the back end.

Are we the Blues or the Maple Leafs
 
  • Like
Reactions: simon IC

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->