Player Discussion How high AAV would you go for Krug?

[JOKER 192]

Question for the six crew.

Torey Krug’s last deal was 7.19% of the cap.

7.19% of the cap today is 5.859M

How did you land on deciding Krug essentially has not raised his value to the Bruins since June 2016?

Krug has definitely raised his value more than that, that's not even arguable. So let's start with the issue that he will likely want to sign 6+ years and could perhaps even get 8 years on the open market. That contract isn't likely to age well.

There is also the matter of a flat cap going forward. Then there's the expansion draft. There is a lot more to consider than just what his value today is. It's not that Krug hasn't earned a raise but giving Krug more than six completely throws the balance off and you will have to make other sacrifices to accommodate him and you will be in worse shape than letting him go.

 

[ON3M4N]

Krug has definitely raised his value more than that, that's not even arguable. So let's start with the issue that he will likely want to sign 6+ years and could perhaps even get 8 years on the open market. That contract isn't likely to age well.

There is also the matter of a flat cap going forward. Then there's the expansion draft. There is a lot more to consider than just what his value today is. It's not that Krug hasn't earned a raise but giving Krug more than six completely throws the balance off and you will have to make other sacrifices to accommodate him and you will be in worse shape than letting him go.

Pretty sure he can only get 8yrs with Boston. Everyone else can only offer 7yrs max

 

[JOKER 192]

Pretty sure he can only get 8yrs with Boston. Everyone else can only offer 7yrs max

True, you got me. The point still remains a long term contract won't likely end well.

 

[bbfan419]

I would say $6.5 maybe $6.75 for 5 to 6 years max, if he wants more money or more term, I look to trade his rights before free agency starts, if it were the NBA we could do a sign and trade. I think they still get something of value back if they trade him. Have to think he will be 35 at the end of a 6 year deal and will be starting to decline one would think. If they did sign him , they may have to trade Krecji anyway, which I am ok with if you can get some combo of picks and/or prospects for him. DK has a NTC of some sort, but I think he would waive if his new team would agree to an extension for 3 years or so.

 

[Kalus]

He'll get 7x7 somewhere. Best to just let him walk. He was a great Bruin and took team friendly deals every contract.

 

[JOKER 192]

He'll get 7x7 somewhere. Best to just let him walk. He was a great Bruin and took team friendly deals every contract.

Well , this is the likely outcome. A home town discount isn't likely considering he's already done that a few times and this is likely his last contract or at least big contract.

 

[missingchicklet]

Voted 6.5. I would much rather pay him more per year, but with a shorter contract. If the Bs didn't have so much young D I would be more inclined to lock Krug up for longer, and for more money. Thing is, D is not an area of need, and there will need to be money for areas of need down the road. In the end, though, I really hope a reasonable deal can be made for Krug since he is such a talented player and has great chemistry with the team. If he walks for a better deal than what the Bs offer, then best of luck to him. He has more than helped the Bs out by playing for under market value for years now. Dude deserves to cash in on his last big contract if that is what he desires.

 

[Alicat]

I don't think it is the money holding things up more than the term. That said, I give him 6.5/6 with a No move clause and easily attainable bonuses.

 

[JAD]

I hope he realizes how good he has it here. He might make more money elsewhere, but he might not experience the camaraderie and chemistry he has experienced here. Life is good for him here; if it ain't broke don't try and fix it. And just because the grass may appear greener somewhere else (in the form of dollars) it might just be because it's growing around the septic tank.

 

[Dr Hook]

I don't think it is the money holding things up more than the term. That said, I give him 6.5/6 with a No move clause and easily attainable bonuses.

Six is a bit long, but if you could end the NMC after four, okay.

 

[BruinsBtn]

I'd hate to see him leave but if they really love Lauzon and Gryz, then I guess you just gotta let him go. Especially if you think you can get another year out of Chara.

Chara-McAvoy
Gryz-Carlo
Moore-Lauzon
Vaak-Zboril

You're not taking much of a step back with that group if you think McAvoy can handle the PP. There's still Cooper Zech and Berglund in the pipeline. Maybe pick up another defenseman in the 2nd round this year.

The upshot is that the Bruins could go into next year with a decent amount of cap space at a time when teams are going to be hurting to unload players and when free agents won't have many bidders.

 

[member 96824]

Krug has definitely raised his value more than that, that's not even arguable. So let's start with the issue that he will likely want to sign 6+ years and could perhaps even get 8 years on the open market. That contract isn't likely to age well.

There is also the matter of a flat cap going forward. Then there's the expansion draft. There is a lot more to consider than just what his value today is. It's not that Krug hasn't earned a raise but giving Krug more than six completely throws the balance off and you will have to make other sacrifices to accommodate him and you will be in worse shape than letting him go.

So, if I’m understanding all of this right..your point is that unless Krug takes a significant discount relative to his value, it’s not worth it because from your perspective, the Bruins should focus on the next window and future values vs. current. Your concern is that in 2027-2028 the contract will be bad so we should just let him walk for nothing in 2020.

I would follow that up and say ok..then what are we doing with Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand, Tuukka Rask, and David Krejci? In that world, if we’re not making the team better because we’re worried about what the roster looks like in 2027, we have to get value for them now..right?

Let’s put aside that you’re completely overlooking the ability to trade Torey Krug, which I think will exist in the future. I don’t think Father Time is as harsh to Torey because he’s reliant on his brain..not any super athletic skills that will deteriorate quickly. People have always used Brian Rafalski as the comp and I think that’s a good one. I think Krug ages similarly as well.

The reason I used % of cap and not real dollars is because it eliminates the flat cap worry. I’m comfortable with Krug taking 9.2% of the cap, I believe he contributes more than 9.2% of the success. The B’s committee more than 9.2% of the cap to their 13th forward and 7th D man this year so I don’t anticipate running into any issues icing a competitive team.

If Torey goes down a path of irrelevant play by 33 I’ll be the first here to raise my hand and say I was wrong.

But I’ll challenge you to elaborate on the last paragraph. What balances are thrown off and what situation are the B’s in a worse spot keeping Krug short and long term than they are letting him walk for free? You’re just tossing out vague points like “many ways to skin a cat”(apparently trades aren’t one), “balance will be thrown off”, “flat cap”, “expansion draft” but not elaborating on any of them.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

He can easily get 7.5-9 in free agency from a team like NJ or Detroit.

I hope for a discount around 6.5 to 7.0 and don't think the Bruins can go higher realistically. I think more than 5 years could be a mistake due to his size. A few high or hard hits by a forechecker and we have problems.

If he goes, he will not be replaced by Gryz but the money can hopefully land a forward upgrade also for that top 6 RW we have needed for a decade.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Question for the six crew.

Torey Krug’s last deal was 7.19% of the cap.

7.19% of the cap today is 5.859M

How did you land on deciding Krug essentially has not raised his value to the Bruins since June 2016?

Good question.

I believe he’s contributing a comparable amount to what he did before he signed that deal. And two other factors:
1. We have some defensive depth now that we didn’t have the luxury of back then, including a new #1 in McAvoy and Grizz who can play many of the same even strength minutes.

And 2. I would expect his contributions to actually recede rather than stay static over the course of a six year deal.

I don’t think 6/6 is the right deal for Krug. And I don’t believe that any higher is the right deal for the Bruins.

 

[Smitty93]

7.575

I’d love to pretend he’s going to come in under what Spurgeon got but I just can’t see it, especially with the open market salivating for a game changing D man on the ice who’s an impeccable leader off it.

Take it from John Moore if you have to I don’t care.

I think the question is who's it coming from? Sure, the bad teams will be all over him, but if they don't win the Cup this year, is Krug going to want to languish on a bad team?

The Bruins are in a better cap situation than basically any other contender, and they're probably barely fitting Krug in, so his options are likely either staying here for a discount or going to a team where the best case scenario is they sneak into the playoffs but have no real chance at competing for a Cup?

I wouldn't blame him if he just went with the option of going to whoever offered him the most money, especially since it's what most of us would do in our own lives. In the end, it's going to be Krug's decision because I don't think Sweeney is coming off his valuation.

 

[Smitty93]

I don't think it is the money holding things up more than the term. That said, I give him 6.5/6 with a No move clause and easily attainable bonuses.

He can't sign a deal with performance bonuses. Those are only for entry level or 35+ contracts.

 

[Alicat]

He can't sign a deal with performance bonuses. Those are only for entry level or 35+ contracts.

Thanks for clarifying. Then they should frontload it as much as possible.

 

[Over the volcano]

I hope he realizes how good he has it here. He might make more money elsewhere, but he might not experience the camaraderie and chemistry he has experienced here. Life is good for him here; if it ain't broke don't try and fix it. And just because the grass may appear greener somewhere else (in the form of dollars) it might just be because it's growing around the septic tank.

My thoughts exactly but flipped - hoping the team understands how good they have it with Krug.

 

[Smitty93]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sweeney's offers have been something like $6.5M for 6 years and $7M for 5 years, while Krug probably wants $7.5M for 7 years or $8M for 6 years. I believen we've heard rumors that they're way off on value, so those kind of offers/counter-offers would make sense if that was true.

 

[member 96824]

Good question.

I believe he’s contributing a comparable amount to what he did before he signed that deal. And two other factors:
1. We have some defensive depth now that we didn’t have the luxury of back then, including a new #1 in McAvoy and Grizz who can play many of the same even strength minutes.

And 2. I would expect his contributions to actually recede rather than stay static over the course of a six year deal.

I don’t think 6/6 is the right deal for Krug. And I don’t believe that any higher is the right deal for the Bruins.

The bolded is absolute crazy talk. There is no way you’ve watched the Bruins the last 5 years and said “yeah Torey’s still the same guy he was in 2015.”

this is what happens on this board. A contract comes up and all of a sudden we only look at the contract in a vacuum and devalue the f*** out of the player.

I’m sorry MMB but if you don’t think Torey Krug is contributing more to the Bruins today than he was 5 years ago we’re going to have to wildly agree to disagree and leave it there.

 

[Dr Hook]

He can easily get 7.5-9 in free agency from a team like NJ or Detroit.

I hope for a discount around 6.5 to 7.0 and don't think the Bruins can go higher realistically. I think more than 5 years could be a mistake due to his size. A few high or hard hits by a forechecker and we have problems.

If he goes, he will not be replaced by Gryz but the money can hopefully land a forward upgrade also for that top 6 RW we have needed for a decade.

This. Even if you believe that his game will not deteriorate in its core strengths due to age (Is he JM Liles at 33 or Rafalski? Who knows), Krug plays with a lot of heart and sack without the supreme escapability that someone like Gryz has. As he loses a step, he is going to get smeared even worse than he does now. His vision, passing, reads etc could still be elite but that slight loss of agility, flexibility and what have you and it is a real risk. I would go four years at 6.5 for him if I were GM, or if longer on term, then no NCM/NTC after four. If he'll take four years, give him 7 per. Past that it gets too dodgy.

 

[Over the volcano]

This. Even if you believe that his game will not deteriorate in its core strengths due to age (Is he JM Liles at 33 or Rafalski? Who knows), Krug plays with a lot of heart and sack without the supreme escapability that someone like Gryz has. As he loses a step, he is going to get smeared even worse than he does now. His vision, passing, reads etc could still be elite but that slight loss of agility, flexibility and what have you and it is a real risk. I would go four years at 6.5 for him if I were GM, or if longer on term, then no NCM/NTC after four. If he'll take four years, give him 7 per. Past that it gets too dodgy.

He’s never depended on “escapability” so I’m not sure his game would age all that poorly. He’s relied on a wicked smart And aggressive offensive game and he won’t get dumber. Maybe his body breaks down, maybe it doesn’t, but I don’t have any real reservations that he’d be more likely to fall off a cliff than most.

He’s a big time player and comes up biggest when it counts the most - he will get his money, I just hope it’s here.

 

[Dr Hook]

He’s never depended on “escapability” so I’m not sure his game would age all that poorly. He’s relied on a wicked smart And aggressive offensive game and he won’t get dumber. Maybe his body breaks down, maybe it doesn’t, but I don’t have any real reservations that he’d be more likely to fall off a cliff than most.

Well that was my point- it isn't his game breaking down that I am talking about here (though I am not convinced it won't) but him getting smashed more as he ages, and being slower to recover. He already gets smashed enough because he isn't an "escapability" guy- he's brave and goes in and takes his beatings. His offensive game may still be there at 32 or 33, but that won't help if he's getting scrambled like an egg.

 

[ON3M4N]

I voted $6.5, but over the last 3 years is offensive totals are in line with Keith Yandle and neitber guy is great defensivley. Krug is the better PP producer and Yandle the better 5v5 producer.

Yandle last deal started around the same age as Krug. His deal was 7yr/$6.35, but adjusting for the current cap it would be 7yr/$7,090,500 using Yandle as a comp. Barrie also has similar numbers, but he's a UFA as well this off-season.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Well that was my point- it isn't his game breaking down that I am talking about here (though I am not convinced it won't) but him getting smashed more as he ages, and being slower to recover. He already gets smashed enough because he isn't an "escapability" guy- he's brave and goes in and takes his beatings. His offensive game may still be there at 32 or 33, but that won't help if he's getting scrambled like an egg.

Exactly.