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.