Player Discussion How high AAV would you go for Krug?

[Over the volcano]

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.

Nah - he’s tougher than most of the guys they have right now, don’t see why we should worry more about him than we would for the rest of the D that would take his place.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

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

There's a limitation on that under the tweaked CBA. As of the end of this season any new player contracts can't have a difference of greater than 25% between the first year and any subsequent years, and the lowest-paid year has to be at least 60% of the highest-paid one.

So for example if Krug were to sign a 6 year, $42 mil contract, the most you could front load it would be to do something like 3 years at $8 mil and the remaining 3 at $6 mil each. Still something you'd want to consider as a GM to offset at least some risk, but the days of drawing up something like Sidney Crosby's contract with a massive 75% difference between his highest and lowest-paid years are over.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

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.

That first point comes back around to the old debate about whether

a) we need someone/s on our D to be capable of generating significant offense; and if so
b) is there any other player currently on the roster capable of delivering that, either now or in the near future?

Overall we definitely have good defensive depth, although with the eventual loss of bargain Chara and quite possibly someone to Seattle, it may not be quite as strong as it may seem. But purely looking at offensive capability from our back 6, personally I do think it's an important area to have covered, and the Bruins' forward group as it stands is not quite good enough to do without it. Take away Krug, and I think McAvoy and Gryz will definitely give you something in creating scoring opportunities, but I'm not sure it's as much as you'd ideally like and I don't see anyone else amongst the prospects who is going to step up and fill that role. Maybe they can trade for someone who will at a cheaper going rate than Torey, but that's purely speculative. Very few have the elite passing touch and vision that Krug does.

So I think in sum it's something that enhances Krug's bargaining power with Sweeney, but only to a point. It might get him an extra $500k p.a., or an extra year, but it's not going to let him dictate whatever he wants. He offers something unique to this team, no question, but there's a limit on what we can/should pay for it.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

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.

Wow. Mighty presumptuous of you.

You say I’m undervaluing his play over the last four seasons. Not the case.
I’d say you undervalue his first three in Boston.

His contributions are comparable. Not identical. But comparable. Still plays sheltered minutes, but remains a leader. He was an excellent player before he signed that deal and he’s done some things since that have helped round out his game.

I propose a contract worth $36M or $6M/yr, both of which are raises - modest in AAV, but massive in overall value of the deal. AND I admit that he would (and should) get a better deal than that from another team. And that translates as “devaluing the f*** out of him”??

Plus, you conveniently didn’t address point number two. Could it be because you agree that it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to be as strong of a player at 34/35 that he is in his prime?

There are other concerns as well. $7.5M/yr (let’s say) that in my opinion could be better spent on the hole(s) in the middle of this lineup that keep the team from forging a multi-line scoring threat. And an expansion draft that would leave the Bruins exposing the likes of Grizz and Lauzon instead of one or the other.

6/6 and I’d be happy to have him stay. We’d definitely miss his presence on the team. He’s been one hell of a player for seven seasons in Boston. More than that and I think the money would be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

That first point comes back around to the old debate about whether

a) we need someone/s on our D to be capable of generating significant offense; and if so
b) is there any other player currently on the roster capable of delivering that, either now or in the near future?

Overall we definitely have good defensive depth, although with the eventual loss of bargain Chara and quite possibly someone to Seattle, it may not be quite as strong as it may seem. But purely looking at offensive capability from our back 6, personally I do think it's an important area to have covered, and the Bruins' forward group as it stands is not quite good enough to do without it. Take away Krug, and I think McAvoy and Gryz will definitely give you something in creating scoring opportunities, but I'm not sure it's as much as you'd ideally like and I don't see anyone else amongst the prospects who is going to step up and fill that role. Maybe they can trade for someone who will at a cheaper going rate than Torey, but that's purely speculative. Very few have the elite passing touch and vision that Krug does.

So I think in sum it's something that enhances Krug's bargaining power with Sweeney, but only to a point. It might get him an extra $500k p.a., or an extra year, but it's not going to let him dictate whatever he wants. He offers something unique to this team, no question, but there's a limit on what we can/should pay for it.

Great post.

Does the defence have the ability to step up in Krug’s proposed absence and help fill the hole he’d leave? Absolutely. Is it fair to expect no drop-off? Ridiculous. We would miss Krug on this blueline for absolutely sure.

 

[Shroud of Orrin]

7.5 is the number we have to deal with. NTC for first 4 of 6 years. "Hello Mr. rubbery Kraken, I have a serviceable D in Roger Moore here who does movies on the side and a free 3rd round pick for a 6th"...Bond meets Sinister Squid. Great.

This talk of "escapability" -- I don't think anyone has really ever defined this ability but to me its about fast retrieval of the puck and very quick zone exists, not the ability to avoid a hit. That's a different kind and of escaping to me. That's about head's up awareness and listening. Escapability in a D to me is about skating speed, edges, deception and the long hard accurate outlet pass that gives your hands a shock. He has that in spades.

Look...we can't replace him. Your'e dreamin' if you think we can internally. Our offence evolves around the #2 PP in the league. I want MacAvoy on the ice when a PP ends - not begins.

He's 6th in the entire league for total points and P/G for a D over the last three years. He's 2nd only to Carlson in PP points over that same time period. Heart. Courage. For his role what else is there?

To me, if he walks, then Don should open the door for him and follow him the X out. I will never forgive him for the '15 draft and my only support is loose strings for career loyalty to the org and he's from my part of the world.

Sorry, but this debate is a bit nuts to me.

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

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?

Love Krug since day 1.

I would definitely give him more than others.

My reasoning is not only for Krug but every player on that current team.

As long as Bergy-Marchand-Pasta get between 6.15-6.85M and are the 3 bests players on the team, you will also have to accept less of market value to keep playing for one of the best team in NHL in an awesome city.

Krug could easily get 8M+ on the market. Top offensive D always get paid. I don’t know how many contenders could give him that but his home town Detroit certainly could.

But if he wants to keep gunning for Cups with this Bruins group, he will have to accept less. Bruins have a plethora of high picks D ready to step in for ELC/minimal money allowing Bruins yo spend elsewhere.

In the end, it will be Krug decision. Accept less to stay here and play for the Cup every year with one of best team in NHL or go with highest bidder.

His choice.

I hope he stays.

 

[JOKER 192]

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.

Ok so I'll answer Paragraph per Paragraph

So, by concerning yourself with the year 2027/28 clearly you are ready to give Krug a 8 year deal. That's just nuts. I'm not concerned about 2027/2028 because I would never give Krug a 8 year deal . So clearly we are thinking WAY differently. You see, I'm concerned about 2025/26 so no way am I going more than 5 years. With all due respect to Krug and I don't want to sound like I have no respect for Krug because I do. Krug because of his size takes a pounding and he doesn't shy away from it the way I have seen others on the Bruins do, so props to him for that , but it does take it's toll. Also , I'm not saying Krug is not worth it as your suggesting, I'm saying the Bruins can't afford it.

The Bruins have 6 players that need a new contract this year . Nordy, Bjork, DeBrusk, Krug, Chara and Gryz. I got the cap space worked out like this , and even this may be a stretch. Now keep in mind there is no relief coming for years. They may have to deal with a flat cap for the next 5 years. So , here we go,
Nordy 1M up to 3 years , as many as he wants but no NTC/NMC
Bjork 1M per , 2 year deal, no NTC/NMC. He's gotta prove he can produce and stay healthy. So far, he hasn't shown either of those things at the NHL level though the potential is there.
DeBrusk 4M per 3 year deal . Hope his agent isn't putting shit in his head, I heard his agent say a some ignorant things but that's probably just posturing. He needs to be more consistent and doesn't have much leverage , so that seems fair to me.
Krug is next , I got him at 6M 5 year deal, full MNC. Can he get more/is he worth more? I have to say yes. Krug can get a minimum of 7x7 and probably more as a free agent and that is likely how this is going to work out.
Chara 2M year by year, NMC. His effectiveness is diminishing by the year and he's holding prospects up. No bonus this time. The only thing that keeps this guy in the game is his reach otherwise he would have been toast long ago. I have played against players Chara's size and the reach is something hard to deal with regardless of talent, that's where Chara is right now. He's been well compensated for many years now with the Bruins , time for him to give a little in these difficult times.
Gryz 3M 3 years . I like Gryz a lot, I think that's fair given production and situation.
So there we have it, 17M leaves the Bruins with under 1M cap space. I could be convinced to give Krug 6.5 but only if all the other deals break the way I have them worked out or better. If we are going to get value out of all the players you have listed we can't afford to lose anyone. If we give Krug the money you are suggesting then we have to start letting some of them go. In that case, it's take it or leave, Krug is odd man out for me. Now your suggesting that we are going to make the team better. If we give Krug the money and term your suggesting we are holding the present status at best, don't see how we are making the team better.

Here we will have to wait and see, I could be wrong but you could too. Krug could be effective for another 8 years just as soon as he could be cooked in 3. No one can answer that question definitively. I think Krug would be asking for a NTC or at the very least a limited NTC , trading would be difficult.

So here is where we differ most in opinion. As I said before , there are many ways to skin a cat. Krug is on a PP that is consistently among the tops in the league, the question is how much of that comes from him and how much of that is the players he plays with. The PP has been just as productive without him albeit a small sample size. I figure it's 50/50. Long term the PP would probably lose a little production with out Krug but what if you could make up for that loss with a better 5 on 5 production or better defense or any number of other ways? Bottom line is winning , it doesn't matter how.


If Torey Krug is still a stud in 2027/28 well I'll be 1st to raise my hand and admit I didn't think he would be but even so I still stick to my guns because this isn't so much about 2027/28 as it is about what we can afford now without having to break up the band.

So, at 9.2% and other things you have stated your ready to give Krug a 7.5/8 year deal. That's what a team will give him as a FA. The reason teams give out bad contracts like that is because they are desperate, they want to sell tickets, they feel this is the player that's going to put them over the top,sometimes they are only thinking short term as you seem to be. Overpay is a way to lure a FA but keep in mind , it's overpay. You know like Backes,Beleskey, Moore, how did those work out? Signing Krug to that deal is the same kind of nonsense, whether he already on your team or a FA. There is also the expansion draft to consider. So if you sign Krug and give him a NTC, which let's face it, you'll have to do at least for the 1st 5 years of the deal, he's automatically one of the 3 protected D. Then you protect McAvoy and Carlo and your leaving Gryz, Connor and Lauzon exposed. I could deal with losing Connor but I would hate to lose the other 2. Either way your probably better off trading at least one of those before expansion but the return will likely be less than fair value. If you give Krug 7.5, what are you giving to the other players that need a new contract, can you break that down for me please? I don't see how your gonna do that without losing a roster player . So who is expendable?

Holy crap this is a long post, looks like something AOF would post.

 

[Lobster57]

i think 6 years at 7M would be my limit, but i think another team offers more

 

[JOKER 192]

Nah - he’s tougher than most of the guys they have right now, don’t see why we should worry more about him than we would for the rest of the D that would take his place.

Simply because they are better built to take it and are younger.

 

[JOKER 192]

Wow. Mighty presumptuous of you.

You say I’m undervaluing his play over the last four seasons. Not the case.
I’d say you undervalue his first three in Boston.

His contributions are comparable. Not identical. But comparable. Still plays sheltered minutes, but remains a leader. He was an excellent player before he signed that deal and he’s done some things since that have helped round out his game.

I propose a contract worth $36M or $6M/yr, both of which are raises - modest in AAV, but massive in overall value of the deal. AND I admit that he would (and should) get a better deal than that from another team. And that translates as “devaluing the f*** out of him”??

Plus, you conveniently didn’t address point number two. Could it be because you agree that it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to be as strong of a player at 34/35 that he is in his prime?

There are other concerns as well. $7.5M/yr (let’s say) that in my opinion could be better spent on the hole(s) in the middle of this lineup that keep the team from forging a multi-line scoring threat. And an expansion draft that would leave the Bruins exposing the likes of Grizz and Lauzon instead of one or the other.

6/6 and I’d be happy to have him stay. We’d definitely miss his presence on the team. He’s been one hell of a player for seven seasons in Boston. More than that and I think the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Your points as you laid them out are identical to mine.

 

[UncleRico]

I think an even bigger proponent of this is what is Krugs actual market. Boston and Detroit? Why not let him test free agency? We know Detroit would be willing to give him market value, but are other teams? Does he want to go to a non contender?

 

[Aussie Bruin]

7.5 is the number we have to deal with. NTC for first 4 of 6 years. "Hello Mr. rubbery Kraken, I have a serviceable D in Roger Moore here who does movies on the side and a free 3rd round pick for a 6th"...Bond meets Sinister Squid. Great.

This talk of "escapability" -- I don't think anyone has really ever defined this ability but to me its about fast retrieval of the puck and very quick zone exists, not the ability to avoid a hit. That's a different kind and of escaping to me. That's about head's up awareness and listening. Escapability in a D to me is about skating speed, edges, deception and the long hard accurate outlet pass that gives your hands a shock. He has that in spades.

Look...we can't replace him. Your'e dreamin' if you think we can internally. Our offence evolves around the #2 PP in the league. I want MacAvoy on the ice when a PP ends - not begins.

He's 6th in the entire league for total points and P/G for a D over the last three years. He's 2nd only to Carlson in PP points over that same time period. Heart. Courage. For his role what else is there?

To me, if he walks, then Don should open the door for him and follow him the X out. I will never forgive him for the '15 draft and my only support is loose strings for career loyalty to the org and he's from my part of the world.

Sorry, but this debate is a bit nuts to me.

I think most of us would like Krug to stay - the debate is around how much and how long we'd pay for the privilege. Are you saying you have no limit? For argument's sake, let's say that Krug comes to Sweeney and says "the Red Wings have offered me 9x7 (or something like that). Match it or I'm leaving Boston." If you're Don, do you do it?

 

[JOKER 192]

I think an even bigger proponent of this is what is Krugs actual market. Boston and Detroit? Why not let him test free agency? We know Detroit would be willing to give him market value, but are other teams? Does he want to go to a non contender?

Habs have plenty of cash and a spot for Krug. The good news is US players don't tend to gravitate towards Canada. Every sports media type in Montreal would pop a permanent pants tent if somehow the Habs could lure Krug from the Bruins and onto their roster. I don't see Krug signing with the Habs unless the offer was just ridiculous but don't discount that possibility , Krug is exactly what they need. What could be worse than seeing a beloved former Bruin in a Habs jersey?

 

[JOKER 192]

I think most of us would like Krug to stay - the debate is around how much and how long we'd pay for the privilege. Are you saying you have no limit? For argument's sake, let's say that Krug comes to Sweeney and says "the Red Wings have offered me 9x7 (or something like that). Match it or I'm leaving Boston." If you're Don, do you do it?

No brainer , See ya. Don't get me wrong , I'd like Krug to stay, just don't think the Bruins will be able to be top bidders for his services, smart money has him playing elsewhere next season. If Krug is playing in Boston next season I tip my hat both to Sweeny and mostly to Krug.

 

[Over the volcano]

Simply because they are better built to take it and are younger.

I get the sentiment, I just don’t see the players. McAvoy, Lauzon, Clifton, and Vaakaneinen haven't been able to finish one full season in the organization at the NHL or AHL level without missing significant time. So we might as well just say Grzlyeck rather than “they” if we’re taking about the younger players who are less likely to get injured.

 

[Baddkarma]

7mx5y. I don't think he will hold up well in his 30s. He is fearless and at reckless. It would suck if he walked. If the Bruins win a cup, it would ease the sting of losing him for sure.

 

[member 96824]

Wow. Mighty presumptuous of you.

You say I’m undervaluing his play over the last four seasons. Not the case.
I’d say you undervalue his first three in Boston.

His contributions are comparable. Not identical. But comparable. Still plays sheltered minutes, but remains a leader. He was an excellent player before he signed that deal and he’s done some things since that have helped round out his game.

I propose a contract worth $36M or $6M/yr, both of which are raises - modest in AAV, but massive in overall value of the deal. AND I admit that he would (and should) get a better deal than that from another team. And that translates as “devaluing the f*** out of him”??

If you’re letting Krug walk at anything above 6, you’re saying that the only reason Krug deserves to be paid more is cause the salary cap has gone up..which is fine I guess, we just very very very much disagree. The break down of that is 60k salary cap inflation, 15k value.

That’s what all these threads do, read the McAvoy one last year, DeBrusk, Krug..anytime someone comes up for extension all of a sudden the player is bad, not worth money, etc. etc. The fans are cheaper than Jacobs is!

Plus, you conveniently didn’t address point number two. Could it be because you agree that it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to be as strong of a player at 34/35 that he is in his prime?

Scroll up, the only thing convenient about it was I decided not to type the same thing twice. I will extend the same question to you that I did to Joker though, if it’s all about 2027 and we’re not concerned with talent drop offs this year in sacrifice of that...then what do we do with our 35 year olds? Should we be exploring trading Bergeron, Rask, and Krejci to get value for them?

There are other concerns as well. $7.5M/yr (let’s say) that in my opinion could be better spent on the hole(s) in the middle of this lineup that keep the team from forging a multi-line scoring threat. And an expansion draft that would leave the Bruins exposing the likes of Grizz and Lauzon instead of one or the other.

Like who? And is that historically been accurate? I’d love to get a list of Don Sweeney’s offseason acquisitions and see what those look like. IIRC none of them scream great value or cap sheet optimization.

Re: expansion...Maybe you would, but I wouldn’t take Gryz or Lauzon straight up over Krug, especially in this limited cup window, so the expansion draft point is moot to me. Seattle can’t take more than 1 player..so whether we expose Gryz, Lauzon, or Gryz and Lauzon they’re still losing someone and that’s also something you can maneuver by working with Seattle.

6/6 and I’d be happy to have him stay. We’d definitely miss his presence on the team. He’s been one hell of a player for seven seasons in Boston. More than that and I think the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Show me where. No hypothetical “middle 6 wing”, I would like names and contracts(If FA) or trades

 

[member 96824]

Love Krug since day 1.

I would definitely give him more than others.

My reasoning is not only for Krug but every player on that current team.

As long as Bergy-Marchand-Pasta get between 6.15-6.85M and are the 3 bests players on the team, you will also have to accept less of market value to keep playing for one of the best team in NHL in an awesome city.

Krug could easily get 8M+ on the market. Top offensive D always get paid. I don’t know how many contenders could give him that but his home town Detroit certainly could.

But if he wants to keep gunning for Cups with this Bruins group, he will have to accept less. Bruins have a plethora of high picks D ready to step in for ELC/minimal money allowing Bruins yo spend elsewhere.

In the end, it will be Krug decision. Accept less to stay here and play for the Cup every year with one of best team in NHL or go with highest bidder.

His choice.

I hope he stays.

Doesn’t Krejci kind of throw the whole “no one makes more than the top line” thing off?

And why not trade him as a 34 year old with 1 year left on his deal and a Stud (pun intended) center prospect waiting in the AHL was to make room for the cash? You get the assets for Krejci, you’re making the choice of a 28 year old vs. a 34 year old and you are still strong up the middle with Bergeron-Coyle-Studnicka as well as driving offense from the back end with your a top 5 PMD in the league. Win win win!

 

[HustleB]

Doesn’t Krejci kind of throw the whole “no one makes more than the top line” thing off?

And why not trade him as a 34 year old with 1 year left on his deal and a Stud (pun intended) center prospect waiting in the AHL was to make room for the cash? You get the assets for Krejci, you’re making the choice of a 28 year old vs. a 34 year old and you are still strong up the middle with Bergeron-Coyle-Studnicka as well as driving offense from the back end with your a top 5 PMD in the league. Win win win!

This would be great but it relies on more moving parts. How hard is it to trade a guy with a NTC to half the league. If you leave teams like Toronto, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay on the list how quickly can you have either eliminate all teams or force the Bruins to deal with one. Seems to me strategically managing that list can almost make it an NMC. I would rather lose Krejci than Krug but it feels like a pipe dream.

 

[member 96824]

Ok so I'll answer Paragraph per Paragraph

So, by concerning yourself with the year 2027/28 clearly you are ready to give Krug a 8 year deal. That's just nuts. I'm not concerned about 2027/2028 because I would never give Krug a 8 year deal . So clearly we are thinking WAY differently. You see, I'm concerned about 2025/26 so no way am I going more than 5 years. With all due respect to Krug and I don't want to sound like I have no respect for Krug because I do. Krug because of his size takes a pounding and he doesn't shy away from it the way I have seen others on the Bruins do, so props to him for that , but it does take it's toll. Also , I'm not saying Krug is not worth it as your suggesting, I'm saying the Bruins can't afford it.

The Bruins have 6 players that need a new contract this year . Nordy, Bjork, DeBrusk, Krug, Chara and Gryz. I got the cap space worked out like this , and even this may be a stretch. Now keep in mind there is no relief coming for years. They may have to deal with a flat cap for the next 5 years. So , here we go,
Nordy 1M up to 3 years , as many as he wants but no NTC/NMC
Bjork 1M per , 2 year deal, no NTC/NMC. He's gotta prove he can produce and stay healthy. So far, he hasn't shown either of those things at the NHL level though the potential is there.
DeBrusk 4M per 3 year deal . Hope his agent isn't putting shit in his head, I heard his agent say a some ignorant things but that's probably just posturing. He needs to be more consistent and doesn't have much leverage , so that seems fair to me.
Krug is next , I got him at 6M 5 year deal, full MNC. Can he get more/is he worth more? I have to say yes. Krug can get a minimum of 7x7 and probably more as a free agent and that is likely how this is going to work out.
Chara 2M year by year, NMC. His effectiveness is diminishing by the year and he's holding prospects up. No bonus this time. The only thing that keeps this guy in the game is his reach otherwise he would have been toast long ago. I have played against players Chara's size and the reach is something hard to deal with regardless of talent, that's where Chara is right now. He's been well compensated for many years now with the Bruins , time for him to give a little in these difficult times.
Gryz 3M 3 years . I like Gryz a lot, I think that's fair given production and situation.
So there we have it, 17M leaves the Bruins with under 1M cap space. I could be convinced to give Krug 6.5 but only if all the other deals break the way I have them worked out or better. If we are going to get value out of all the players you have listed we can't afford to lose anyone. If we give Krug the money you are suggesting then we have to start letting some of them go. In that case, it's take it or leave, Krug is odd man out for me. Now your suggesting that we are going to make the team better. If we give Krug the money and term your suggesting we are holding the present status at best, don't see how we are making the team better.

Here we will have to wait and see, I could be wrong but you could too. Krug could be effective for another 8 years just as soon as he could be cooked in 3. No one can answer that question definitively. I think Krug would be asking for a NTC or at the very least a limited NTC , trading would be difficult.

So here is where we differ most in opinion. As I said before , there are many ways to skin a cat. Krug is on a PP that is consistently among the tops in the league, the question is how much of that comes from him and how much of that is the players he plays with. The PP has been just as productive without him albeit a small sample size. I figure it's 50/50. Long term the PP would probably lose a little production with out Krug but what if you could make up for that loss with a better 5 on 5 production or better defense or any number of other ways? Bottom line is winning , it doesn't matter how.


If Torey Krug is still a stud in 2027/28 well I'll be 1st to raise my hand and admit I didn't think he would be but even so I still stick to my guns because this isn't so much about 2027/28 as it is about what we can afford now without having to break up the band.

So, at 9.2% and other things you have stated your ready to give Krug a 7.5/8 year deal. That's what a team will give him as a FA. The reason teams give out bad contracts like that is because they are desperate, they want to sell tickets, they feel this is the player that's going to put them over the top,sometimes they are only thinking short term as you seem to be. Overpay is a way to lure a FA but keep in mind , it's overpay. You know like Backes,Beleskey, Moore, how did those work out? Signing Krug to that deal is the same kind of nonsense, whether he already on your team or a FA. There is also the expansion draft to consider. So if you sign Krug and give him a NTC, which let's face it, you'll have to do at least for the 1st 5 years of the deal, he's automatically one of the 3 protected D. Then you protect McAvoy and Carlo and your leaving Gryz, Connor and Lauzon exposed. I could deal with losing Connor but I would hate to lose the other 2. Either way your probably better off trading at least one of those before expansion but the return will likely be less than fair value. If you give Krug 7.5, what are you giving to the other players that need a new contract, can you break that down for me please? I don't see how your gonna do that without losing a roster player . So who is expendable?

Holy crap this is a long post, looks like something AOF would post.

You avoided my point, but I’ll address yours anyway. I’m not champing at the bit to give Krug 8 years but if that’s what it takes I would. My 7.5 is based on the OP’s proposal of 6 years. That’s the question at play here. Again, I ask though if that’s the focus and we’re willing to let one of our core players walk for free at 28 cause of what they might look like at 35, then what do we do with our 30+ core? And BTW, how do those guys look at 35 anyway? Or have Bergeron, Rask, Chara, and even Marchand is getting up there not played the same hard minutes that Krug plays?

You know comparing paying Torey Krug 2M more a year to Beleskey, Backes, and Moore is crazy. I’m not going to address that.

My plans team looks like this:
Marchand-Bergeron-Pastrnak
DeBrusk($4)-Krejci-Kase
Ritchie-Coyle-Bjork(1.8)
Kuraly-Studnicka/Frederic-Wagner

Gryz($2.5)-McAvoy
Krug(7.5)-Carlo
Lauzon-Clifton
Zboril($925k)

Rask
Halak

I shoot John Moore into the sun. We’re cap compliant with $2.1M in space, and not having tell Patrice Bergeron that we didn’t re-sign Krug because of what the team might look like in 2027. Checks out on capfriendly even just burying Moore. https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/1808640

 

[Over the volcano]

This would be great but it relies on more moving parts. How hard is it to trade a guy with a NTC to half the league. If you leave teams like Toronto, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay on the list how quickly can you have either eliminate all teams or force the Bruins to deal with one. Seems to me strategically managing that list can almost make it an NMC. I would rather lose Krejci than Krug but it feels like a pipe dream.

Krejci’s only got a year left on his deal though, no? So it’s just about making krug fit next year- the money would be clear after that (if you’re ok with letting Krejci walk).

 

[JOKER 192]

You avoided my point, but I’ll address yours anyway. I’m not champing at the bit to give Krug 8 years but if that’s what it takes I would. My 7.5 is based on the OP’s proposal of 6 years. That’s the question at play here. Again, I ask though if that’s the focus and we’re willing to let one of our core players walk for free at 28 cause of what they might look like at 35, then what do we do with our 30+ core? And BTW, how do those guys look at 35 anyway? Or have Bergeron, Rask, Chara, and even Marchand is getting up there not played the same hard minutes that Krug plays?

You know comparing paying Torey Krug 2M more a year to Beleskey, Backes, and Moore is crazy. I’m not going to address that.

My plans team looks like this:
Marchand-Bergeron-Pastrnak
DeBrusk($4)-Krejci-Kase
Ritchie-Coyle-Bjork(1.8)
Kuraly-Studnicka/Frederic-Wagner

Gryz($2.5)-McAvoy
Krug(7.5)-Carlo
Lauzon-Clifton
Zboril($925k)

Rask
Halak

I shoot John Moore into the sun. We’re cap compliant with space, and not having tell Patrice Bergeron that we didn’t re-sign Krug because of what the team might look like in 2027. Checks out on capfriendly.

Ok so your question is what do you do with the aging core players if your letting Krug go? I just don't see them as connected as you seem to, they're at a point where choices have to be made, it isn't because you let Krug the rest come into question. In your scenario your letting Chara go isn't that the same thing? This is my point , somehow the band is going to be broken up , you side with Krug, which may be the right way to go. I think we can survive without him. I'm more worried about life without Chara than I am about life without Krug not to mention all my other concerns which we have already gone over.

Yes I get comparing Krug to Backes ,Beleskey and Moore isn't the same but the point I'm getting at is that signing free agents works out really bad more often than not.

So your gonna shoot Moore into the sun hun? I don't think unloading Moore is going to be that easy.

I notice Chara isn't on your roster, are the Bruins young D really ready for that? I'd hold on to him, he has a presence that is hard to replace in leadership and the respect he commands from both opponents and teammates is immeasurable.

Lastly you gotta let 2027 go, your way ahead of me I'm concerned about the next few years not 2027, it's convenient for your argument but it's not part of mine.

 

[member 96824]

Ok so your question is what do you do with the aging core players if your letting Krug go? I just don't see them as connected as you seem to, they're at a point where choices have to be made, it isn't because you let Krug the rest come into question. In your scenario your letting Chara go isn't that the same thing? This is my point , somehow the band is going to be broken up , you side with Krug, which may be the right way to go. I think we can survive without him. I'm more worried about life without Chara than I am about life without Krug not to mention all my other concerns which we have already gone over.

Yes I get comparing Krug to Backes ,Beleskey and Moore isn't the same but the point I'm getting at is that signing free agents works out really bad more often than not.

So your gonna shoot Moore into the sun hun? I don't think unloading Moore is going to be that easy.

I notice Chara isn't on your roster, are the Bruins young D really ready for that? I'd hold on to him, he has a presence that is hard to replace in leadership and the respect he commands from both opponents and teammates is immeasurable.

That’s why I buried Moore on my example, not traded him, even though it would be better to deal him obviously. It’s all in there. Replace Zboril with Chara and waive Zboril..doesn’t really matter to me. I think the young D is ready AND I think Chara has held McAvoy’s play back as CM covers for Chara significantly right now. I’ve just kind of thought Chara hangs them up but if he’ll come back that works too.

But none of those decisions matter to me relative to keeping Krug or not..and the point still stands that it all fits.

 

[easton117]

Habs have plenty of cash and a spot for Krug. The good news is US players don't tend to gravitate towards Canada. Every sports media type in Montreal would pop a permanent pants tent if somehow the Habs could lure Krug from the Bruins and onto their roster. I don't see Krug signing with the Habs unless the offer was just ridiculous but don't discount that possibility , Krug is exactly what they need. What could be worse than seeing a beloved former Bruin in a Habs jersey?

I wonder if that will change some with the whole COVID 19 issue down in the US.

That’s hopefully a short term concern for everyone, but not one I think every family can overlook