Speculation: Pietrangelo's future (reports: to go to FA)

[Brian39]

Prior to the 2019 TDL, I remember reading a lot of exchanges between Leaf fans and Hurricanes fans on the trade boards, with Leaf fans targeting a RD. There was lots of discussion about Faulk. Fans on both sides were critical of Faulk's defensive game then, so this is not something unique to our board. This is one of the reasons I was both astounded and dismayed when Armstrong targeted him. If you look at his career stats, the 2018-19 season was the only one where he was not in minuses. He has never been good defensively, and I don't think those +/- stats are bad just because he played on a bad team. In 2018-19 The Hurricanes had a great season and playoff run, largely due to Rod Brind'Amour. Faulk had a career year that season, and I think this may have fooled our scouts into thinking they were acquiring a two-way defenseman. He has never been that.

I agree that Faulk has never been a defensive stud, but I disagree that the +/- tells us much.

In 2014/15 there were only 2 Hurricanes who had a positive +/-. They were +1 and +2 with under 50 games played. Faulk was hardly the only D with a bad +/- (at -19 through 82 games played). Tim Gleason had a -18 through 55 games, Ron Hainsey was -14 playing 3:30 less a night, Ryan Murphy was -11 through 37 games, John-Michael Liles was -9 through 57 games, Michal Jordan was -7 through 38 games and Andrej Sekera was -7 through 57 games. This was a bad team, but they were actually better defensively than offensively. They were 20th in goals against and 27th in goals for with a -38 differential. His bad +/- was largely because this team couldn't score. His 49 points were 2nd on the team and the leader had just 54 points. His expected +/- was -3.4, his actual GA/60 was 2.6 and he had 20 more takeaways than he did giveaways. His possession numbers were damn good. Every metric but raw +/- suggests that he was pretty decent defensively this year and everyone on this awful team had a bad +/- so I tend to put very little value in that number.

2015/16 was pretty similar, The leading scorer in the team had just 51 points, with Faulk's 37 points in 64 games being 5th on the team (all 4 guys ahead of him played 80+ games too). His defensive play was not as good this year. His expected +/- got worse despite playing 18 fewer games and his possession numbers got worse (although they were still good). His takeaway/giveaway ratio got worse as well (but was still positive), but it is worth noting he was used in a slightly more defensive role. His defensive play appears to have slipped this year, but all the metrics besides raw +/- suggest he was at least decent defensively on a bad team.

2016/17: This team has one of the most bizarre +/- splits I've ever seen. Pesce and Slavin were both +23. The other 6 D on the roster were -10 or worse. Even crazier, Pesce, Slavin, and Faulk all had a positive expected +/- (Pesce and Slavin were each about expected +10 while Faulk was 1.8). I'm not sure I've ever seen teammates with positive expected +/- have raw +/- totals that are that different. Other than the raw +/-, all of Faulk's numbers were good this year. 53 takeaways vs 45 giveaways, strong possession numbers with really strong relative possession numbers and the +1.8 expected +/- already mentioned. Again, every metric but raw +/- suggests that Faulk was decent defensively.

2017/18: Yet another year where all of his metrics besides +/- are solid. Expected +/- of 5.8, great possession numbers (likely bolstered by offensive-minded usage), 63 takeaways vs 66 giveaways, but he had a poor offensive season (31 points and an abysmal 3.8 personal shooting percentage). His actual +/- was -26. Ward and Darling's combined even strength SV% when he was on the ice was a staggeringly bad .885. It is tough to overstate just how bad Darling was this year. He posted a -28.22 GSAA through just 40 starts. Truly remarkable.

All in all, Faulk has consistently had fine underlying/expected metrics that haven't translated at all to on ice results. His PDO has been below 100 in 7 of his 9 NHL seasons and below 98 in 5 of his 9 seasons. For the uninitiated, PDO is simply your goalie's SV% plus your team's shooting percentage while you are on the ice at even strength. It is one of those stats that generally regresses to 100 over time and anything above or below 100 suggests that you were unusually lucky (or unlucky). Consistent underperformance on this number suggests that the player's play contributes to the low SV% or shooting percentage. What's strange about Faulk is that his expected GF and GA numbers don't back this up. His expected numbers don't suggest that his goalie's SV% is low due to an increase in high danger chances when he is on the ice or that his team's low shooting percentage is a result of settling for low calorie chances. The combo of his expected numbers and his consistently low PDO is possibly the strangest I have ever seen. He has either been extraordinarily unlucky or something about his play style "breaks" the stats that measure quality of scoring chances. Or maybe a combination of both. I think the Blues looked at his success in a finally good system in 2018/19 as an indication that the underlying metrics had been accurate all along.

 

[Alklha]

I'm not worried about Faulk and I won't stress over Petro leaving.

The future is #55.

As I've said before, I wouldn't be surprised if it is #55 that isn't back next season.

 

[bleedblue1223]

As I've said before, I wouldn't be surprised if it is #55 that isn't back next season.

I guess if that's the case, we better get a truckload in return.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

As I've said before, I wouldn't be surprised if it is #55 that isn't back next season.

You imply Pietro will be back, though. What would Armstrong get in return for Parayko, that can fit the salary structure remaining, that would justify breaking up a proven winning combination? Surely Armstrong wouldn’t do this unless he thought it made the Blues better. Can you outline an example of what deal would fit that framework? I can’t come up with anything.

 

[Brian39]

As I've said before, I wouldn't be surprised if it is #55 that isn't back next season.

I would be stunned if they gave Scandella a 4 year extension based on an 11 game stint as Parayko's partner just to trade Parayko a few months later. Army's most frequent talking point for years is how he built this team around big, mobile D men with good sticks, good defensive awareness and the ability to quickly move the puck up ice. Every time he talks about this, he might as well be saying "I want every D man to be as close to Parayko as possible." Additionally, Berube very obviously loves Parayko, giving him a full minute more even strength ice time than Petro every night. Finally, while no one internally can replace Petro, we are deeper at Petro's skill set than we are Parayko's. The D takes a huge hit if either is gone next year, but the gap between Petro and his replacement is smaller than the gap between Parayko and his replacement (we don't have an NHL-ready "poor man's Parayko" in the organization). If you lose Parayko, the entire structure of the blue line changes (and the blue line gets worse). If you lose Petro, the structure remains the same (and the blue line gets worse).

But most importantly, it doesn't even make sense to move Parayko from an asset management standpoint. Trading Parayko for futures (and to fit Petro) makes no sense. Any Petro extension means you are in full "win-now" mode. It makes no sense to trade Parayko for futures and drastically hurt your blue line if you are in win-now mode. So moving Parayko instead of Petro would need to be a hockey trade. And a hockey trade means you are taking salary back and that moving Parayko isn't done to create cap space, so you still have to move a couple other contracts to fit Petro. What are the odds you win a hockey trade for Parayko, especially since we can't afford to take on significant salary? Moving Parayko to clear cap space makes substantially less sense than moving complimentary pieces. Moving Parayko in a hockey trade only makes sense if you can get a comparable player for similar money. Good luck with that.

I don't see anything to suggest the Blues will move on from Parayko to extend Petro. It doesn't fit Army's vision, it doesn't fit Berube's vision and I can't come up with a scenario where moving Parayko actually clears cap space for Petro without hurting the roster substantially more than finding other ways to clear up the space.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You imply Pietro will be back, though. What would Armstrong get in return for Parayko, that can fit the salary structure remaining, that would justify breaking up a proven winning combination? Surely Armstrong wouldn’t do this unless he thought it made the Blues better. Can you outline an example of what deal would fit that framework? I can’t come up with anything.

It would have to be Parayko and one of the cap dumps for a young quality player and assets. I personally don't see it, but who knows.

 

[Blueston]

I agree that Faulk has never been a defensive stud, but I disagree that the +/- tells us much.

In 2014/15 there were only 2 Hurricanes who had a positive +/-. They were +1 and +2 with under 50 games played. Faulk was hardly the only D with a bad +/- (at -19 through 82 games played). Tim Gleason had a -18 through 55 games, Ron Hainsey was -14 playing 3:30 less a night, Ryan Murphy was -11 through 37 games, John-Michael Liles was -9 through 57 games, Michal Jordan was -7 through 38 games and Andrej Sekera was -7 through 57 games. This was a bad team, but they were actually better defensively than offensively. They were 20th in goals against and 27th in goals for with a -38 differential. His bad +/- was largely because this team couldn't score. His 49 points were 2nd on the team and the leader had just 54 points. His expected +/- was -3.4, his actual GA/60 was 2.6 and he had 20 more takeaways than he did giveaways. His possession numbers were damn good. Every metric but raw +/- suggests that he was pretty decent defensively this year and everyone on this awful team had a bad +/- so I tend to put very little value in that number.

2015/16 was pretty similar, The leading scorer in the team had just 51 points, with Faulk's 37 points in 64 games being 5th on the team (all 4 guys ahead of him played 80+ games too). His defensive play was not as good this year. His expected +/- got worse despite playing 18 fewer games and his possession numbers got worse (although they were still good). His takeaway/giveaway ratio got worse as well (but was still positive), but it is worth noting he was used in a slightly more defensive role. His defensive play appears to have slipped this year, but all the metrics besides raw +/- suggest he was at least decent defensively on a bad team.

2016/17: This team has one of the most bizarre +/- splits I've ever seen. Pesce and Slavin were both +23. The other 6 D on the roster were -10 or worse. Even crazier, Pesce, Slavin, and Faulk all had a positive expected +/- (Pesce and Slavin were each about expected +10 while Faulk was 1.8). I'm not sure I've ever seen teammates with positive expected +/- have raw +/- totals that are that different. Other than the raw +/-, all of Faulk's numbers were good this year. 53 takeaways vs 45 giveaways, strong possession numbers with really strong relative possession numbers and the +1.8 expected +/- already mentioned. Again, every metric but raw +/- suggests that Faulk was decent defensively.

2017/18: Yet another year where all of his metrics besides +/- are solid. Expected +/- of 5.8, great possession numbers (likely bolstered by offensive-minded usage), 63 takeaways vs 66 giveaways, but he had a poor offensive season (31 points and an abysmal 3.8 personal shooting percentage). His actual +/- was -26. Ward and Darling's combined even strength SV% when he was on the ice was a staggeringly bad .885. It is tough to overstate just how bad Darling was this year. He posted a -28.22 GSAA through just 40 starts. Truly remarkable.

All in all, Faulk has consistently had fine underlying/expected metrics that haven't translated at all to on ice results. His PDO has been below 100 in 7 of his 9 NHL seasons and below 98 in 5 of his 9 seasons. For the uninitiated, PDO is simply your goalie's SV% plus your team's shooting percentage while you are on the ice at even strength. It is one of those stats that generally regresses to 100 over time and anything above or below 100 suggests that you were unusually lucky (or unlucky). Consistent underperformance on this number suggests that the player's play contributes to the low SV% or shooting percentage. What's strange about Faulk is that his expected GF and GA numbers don't back this up. His expected numbers don't suggest that his goalie's SV% is low due to an increase in high danger chances when he is on the ice or that his team's low shooting percentage is a result of settling for low calorie chances. The combo of his expected numbers and his consistently low PDO is possibly the strangest I have ever seen. He has either been extraordinarily unlucky or something about his play style "breaks" the stats that measure quality of scoring chances. Or maybe a combination of both. I think the Blues looked at his success in a finally good system in 2018/19 as an indication that the underlying metrics had been accurate all along.

Well said. And it is worth reiterating that Carolina has had crappy goaltending most of this time period. Would stand to reason that top defenseman, playing top minutes, often against top competition, is going to have bad on-ice sv% and bad +/- if goalie play is subpar.

Faulk was certainly uneven for Blues this year, for reasons that have been discussed, but he was also really unlucky. He went through stretch that he seemed to be on ice for every goal against, even though on most he wasn't primarily responsible for goal. Dude couldn't catch a break. With a fresh start and full training camp, I have every expectation he is going to be much more effective when we return.

 

[Alklha]

Occam's razor... if we're going to lose a RHD then losing Pietrangelo is the most likely scenario from our perspective.

The main question is whether Armstrong acquired Faulk to be the replacement for someone in the medium term. I think that the answer to that is likely to be yes.

While we did have Pietrangelo, Parayko and Shattenkirk for a while, that wasn't really by design. We know that Armstrong was attempting to trade Shattenkirk before Parayko had played a single game in the NHL. Parayko was also on an ELC, making it a much more viable situation. Extending Pietrangelo and Parayko, while retaining Faulk, would mean our RHD would cost around $24m from 2022/23. That's simply not a good use of cap space. Special teams can help balance out minutes, but it is not an ideal use.

We viewed someone as a LHD in the long term? We didn't like the idea of moving Pietrangelo or Parayko there when Shattenkirk was here, so that theory would probably be about viewing Faulk as a LHD. When we have Dunn on the team and our scouts loving Perunovich, I don't think Faulk is who we'd target to give a big money, long term deal to play on his off side.

If Faulk was brought in to be the eventual replacement, it's roster spot replacement and it's Pietrangelo or Parayko.

If we do extend Pietrangelo, that is in line with what the media has reported all year. Bob McKenzie, and local media, said before the season that Pietrangelo wanted to stay. Pierre LeBrun, among others, have reported that the contract expectations are not excessive. So it isn't like there was a sudden change, so why did we acquire Faulk if it always looked likely that a deal would be worked out?

I absolutely agree that it doesn't make sense from a roster standpoint to move Parayko, but if we do extend Pietrangelo then the questions over the Faulk acquisition increase.

 

[Brian39]

Occam's razor... if we're going to lose a RHD then losing Pietrangelo is the most likely scenario from our perspective.

The main question is whether Armstrong acquired Faulk to be the replacement for someone in the medium term. I think that the answer to that is likely to be yes.

While we did have Pietrangelo, Parayko and Shattenkirk for a while, that wasn't really by design. We know that Armstrong was attempting to trade Shattenkirk before Parayko had played a single game in the NHL. Parayko was also on an ELC, making it a much more viable situation. Extending Pietrangelo and Parayko, while retaining Faulk, would mean our RHD would cost around $24m from 2022/23. That's simply not a good use of cap space. Special teams can help balance out minutes, but it is not an ideal use.

We viewed someone as a LHD in the long term? We didn't like the idea of moving Pietrangelo or Parayko there when Shattenkirk was here, so that theory would probably be about viewing Faulk as a LHD. When we have Dunn on the team and our scouts loving Perunovich, I don't think Faulk is who we'd target to give a big money, long term deal to play on his off side.

If Faulk was brought in to be the eventual replacement, it's roster spot replacement and it's Pietrangelo or Parayko.

If we do extend Pietrangelo, that is in line with what the media has reported all year. Bob McKenzie, and local media, said before the season that Pietrangelo wanted to stay. Pierre LeBrun, among others, have reported that the contract expectations are not excessive. So it isn't like there was a sudden change, so why did we acquire Faulk if it always looked likely that a deal would be worked out?

I absolutely agree that it doesn't make sense from a roster standpoint to move Parayko, but if we do extend Pietrangelo then the questions over the Faulk acquisition increase.

My issue with this line of reasoning is that it makes no sense to move Parayko this summer if the justification for moving one of the three is that $24M in 2022 and beyond is just too much to spend on right D.

Assuming that the organization isn't willing to spend that much on Faulk, Petro and Parayko, I don't think it is a given that a Petro extension means that Parayko was intended to be the odd man out from those 3. I think it is at least as likely that the intention with the Faulk extension was to get 2 seasons with all 3 while Parayko's contract afforded us that luxury and then expose Faulk in the expansion draft in the summer of 2021. It is at least as reasonable to assume Seattle would obviously take him as it is to assume he would adequately replace Parayko. So even if we are trying to analyze which of the 3 the Blues intended to move on from by 2022, I don't think you can say it more likely to be Parayko then Faulk.

Additionally, regardless of what the intention was when singing Faulk, Army has shown time and time again that he is willing to cut his losses and change the plan. I'm not nearly as down on Faulk as most, but I don't think anyone can look at this season and say "we're better off keeping Faulk than Parayko once Parayko's payday comes." Even if Faulk was intended to replace Parayko, I think there is every reason to believe that such a plan is subject to change. There is every reason to believe (based on usage and the Scandella extension) that the Blues would explore every avenue to get out of the Faulk extension in order to keep Parayko now that they have seen Faulk in our system for an extended period of time.

Which brings me to my final point. Even if the plan is still for Parayko to be the odd man out once he gets his raise in 2022, why move him this summer? He has 2 more years left on his deal at an amazing AAV. Parayko's on ice contribution at $5.5M against the cap is a monstrously valuable asset for the Blues in the year that is the biggest cap crunch this franchise has ever seen (assuming a Petro extension). The value of contribution over AAV is more valuable to a cap crunched contender than it is to most teams. The value most teams are interested in when they look to acquire Parayko is his on-ice contribution and the opportunity to extend him long-term. His low cap hit in 20/21 holds more value to the Blues than any other franchise, so it is difficult to recover/reflect that in a trade. Even before the pandemic created all this uncertainty, 20/21 was going to be the year where cap management was most difficult. Allen, Bozak, Steen, and Gunnar naturally come off the books after 20/21. So do a couple core pieces, so there is tons of flexibility for the team to take on salary in 2021. There is an expansion draft that may free up more space. 2021/22 is a year where we probably could take on a big salary in a trade. So why move Parayko in a summer where the cap is cruching us when we could wait a year and move him in a summer where we actually could take on the contract of a comparable player? Even if we make every assumption in the light favoring the idea that Parayko will become the odd man out, it still makes no logical sense for him to get moved this summer instead of next summer.

If Faulk was to be the Parayko replacement for reasons other than money, then Parayko would have been moved already. If Faulk was to be the Parayko replacement once Parayko was owed his big contract, then you keep Parayko around for 20/21 for the same reason you kept him around this year: to take your best swing at a Cup with all 3. If we weren't willing to move 3 years of Parayko under cap constraints, then there is no rational reason to move 2 years of Parayko under bigger cap constraints when we could move 1 year of Parayko with minimal cap constraints.

 

[Celtic Note]

I

I agree that Faulk has never been a defensive stud, but I disagree that the +/- tells us much.

In 2014/15 there were only 2 Hurricanes who had a positive +/-. They were +1 and +2 with under 50 games played. Faulk was hardly the only D with a bad +/- (at -19 through 82 games played). Tim Gleason had a -18 through 55 games, Ron Hainsey was -14 playing 3:30 less a night, Ryan Murphy was -11 through 37 games, John-Michael Liles was -9 through 57 games, Michal Jordan was -7 through 38 games and Andrej Sekera was -7 through 57 games. This was a bad team, but they were actually better defensively than offensively. They were 20th in goals against and 27th in goals for with a -38 differential. His bad +/- was largely because this team couldn't score. His 49 points were 2nd on the team and the leader had just 54 points. His expected +/- was -3.4, his actual GA/60 was 2.6 and he had 20 more takeaways than he did giveaways. His possession numbers were damn good. Every metric but raw +/- suggests that he was pretty decent defensively this year and everyone on this awful team had a bad +/- so I tend to put very little value in that number.

2015/16 was pretty similar, The leading scorer in the team had just 51 points, with Faulk's 37 points in 64 games being 5th on the team (all 4 guys ahead of him played 80+ games too). His defensive play was not as good this year. His expected +/- got worse despite playing 18 fewer games and his possession numbers got worse (although they were still good). His takeaway/giveaway ratio got worse as well (but was still positive), but it is worth noting he was used in a slightly more defensive role. His defensive play appears to have slipped this year, but all the metrics besides raw +/- suggest he was at least decent defensively on a bad team.

2016/17: This team has one of the most bizarre +/- splits I've ever seen. Pesce and Slavin were both +23. The other 6 D on the roster were -10 or worse. Even crazier, Pesce, Slavin, and Faulk all had a positive expected +/- (Pesce and Slavin were each about expected +10 while Faulk was 1.8). I'm not sure I've ever seen teammates with positive expected +/- have raw +/- totals that are that different. Other than the raw +/-, all of Faulk's numbers were good this year. 53 takeaways vs 45 giveaways, strong possession numbers with really strong relative possession numbers and the +1.8 expected +/- already mentioned. Again, every metric but raw +/- suggests that Faulk was decent defensively.

2017/18: Yet another year where all of his metrics besides +/- are solid. Expected +/- of 5.8, great possession numbers (likely bolstered by offensive-minded usage), 63 takeaways vs 66 giveaways, but he had a poor offensive season (31 points and an abysmal 3.8 personal shooting percentage). His actual +/- was -26. Ward and Darling's combined even strength SV% when he was on the ice was a staggeringly bad .885. It is tough to overstate just how bad Darling was this year. He posted a -28.22 GSAA through just 40 starts. Truly remarkable.

All in all, Faulk has consistently had fine underlying/expected metrics that haven't translated at all to on ice results. His PDO has been below 100 in 7 of his 9 NHL seasons and below 98 in 5 of his 9 seasons. For the uninitiated, PDO is simply your goalie's SV% plus your team's shooting percentage while you are on the ice at even strength. It is one of those stats that generally regresses to 100 over time and anything above or below 100 suggests that you were unusually lucky (or unlucky). Consistent underperformance on this number suggests that the player's play contributes to the low SV% or shooting percentage. What's strange about Faulk is that his expected GF and GA numbers don't back this up. His expected numbers don't suggest that his goalie's SV% is low due to an increase in high danger chances when he is on the ice or that his team's low shooting percentage is a result of settling for low calorie chances. The combo of his expected numbers and his consistently low PDO is possibly the strangest I have ever seen. He has either been extraordinarily unlucky or something about his play style "breaks" the stats that measure quality of scoring chances. Or maybe a combination of both. I think the Blues looked at his success in a finally good system in 2018/19 as an indication that the underlying metrics had been accurate all along.

Think his play style breaks the stats. He is better than average a good chunk of the time (thus the decent numbers), but then he commits wildly terrible gaffes between those periods of good play.

I also think we need to compare these numbers to what we lose on Petro.

Finally, I really appreciate the effort you put in your post. It was a really good read.

 

[Robb_K]

As I've said before, I wouldn't be surprised if it is #55 that isn't back next season.

That makes NO sense, at all. It would make more sense to let Pietrangelo walk - and THAT also makes no sense. Both will be able to fit under the cap. Pietrangelo should leave only if HE just doesn't want to stay badly enough to accept a compromise contract total amount AND term, that The Blues can accept. The Blues CAN shed the salary needed to fit him in.

 

[simon IC]

I honestly think Parayko is the most valuable St. Louis Blue. Yes, more so than Pietrangelo. I would be heartbroken if Armstrong traded him, but I don't think the GM is that stupid.

 

[Brian39]

I

Think his play style breaks the stats. He is better than average a good chunk of the time (thus the decent numbers), but then he commits wildly terrible gaffes between those periods of good play.

I also think we need to compare these numbers to what we lose on Petro.

Finally, I really appreciate the effort you put in your post. It was a really good read.

What is so strange is that most of the terrible gaffes you talk about result in scoring chances that are considered high danger and should be reflected pretty accurately in metrics that measure expected goals against. Something about Faulk's play would need to be causing shots to be much more dangerous than they generally are for some reason. One way this can occur is if you have a player who constantly screens his own goalie without effectively blocking shots. My eye test hasn't told me that Faulk is guilty of this and I can't pinpoint what about his play makes shots more dangerous than you would expect.

I do think that the his sample size of "unluckiness" is just too big to chalk up as bad luck and I agree that something about his play style causes these metrics to inaccurately measure what he does. I just can't figure out what that is.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I would be shocked if Parayko was the one moved to make room to re-sign Petro. Outside of guys on ELCs, Parayko has the most team friendly contract on the team. There are so many other options to make room for Petro that would make way better sense before I’d even consider trading Parayko.

 

[Celtic Note]

What is so strange is that most of the terrible gaffes you talk about result in scoring chances that are considered high danger and should be reflected pretty accurately in metrics that measure expected goals against. Something about Faulk's play would need to be causing shots to be much more dangerous than they generally are for some reason. One way this can occur is if you have a player who constantly screens his own goalie without effectively blocking shots. My eye test hasn't told me that Faulk is guilty of this and I can't pinpoint what about his play makes shots more dangerous than you would expect.

I do think that the his sample size of "unluckiness" is just too big to chalk up as bad luck and I agree that something about his play style causes these metrics to inaccurately measure what he does. I just can't figure out what that is.

I am not sure that Faulk has more high danger shots allowed than other top pairing guys to any extreme range. However, I think he tends to have more of those chances fall into that category that are a next level higher. Maybe a better way to put this is that it is an argument of quality over quantity. Let’s say he had the same number of high danger chances as a comparable player (just as a control for the experiment). I would bet he has a higher degree of high danger chances. His chances against are generally more dangerous when they happen. To my knowledge there is no stat that measures the quality of chance within each zone. They do not depict the actual situation. As an example, you could have two high danger chances that take place at the exact same location on the ice, but the degree of difficultly in making the save is vastly different.

I could think of a few instances that I remember with Faulk being involved where this seems to illustrate the point.

I have seen him get lost behind the net, leaving his man right at the doorstep for a tap in. A different situation that frequently happens (in the same location and would count equally as a high danger shot) is a guy being at the side of the crease with a defender on him. Having a defender on the guy makes scoring much less likely, because a shot can be rushed or altered. In the Faulk example, the player was completely free. Again, these seem to be counted the same, where in all actuality one is more dangerous than the other.

 

[Ranksu]

I don't remember dmen in Blues who has been that bad in defensive stick like Faulk. Another thing what worries me about Faulk not being as positionally sounded. He is good in skates, but majority of time he's late from situation and doesn't recognize where is his man like Celtic wrote. Generally Faulk's hockey IQ is pretty low for deserving 6.5mill.$ contract. Jeesus it always drives me nuts to understand how bad this contract was in first place.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

If we lose Dunner or Perry I say let Alex walk. Protect the future.

 

[Ranksu]

If we lose Dunner or Perry I say let Alex walk. Protect the future.

 

[SwivelSchwartz]

Parayko is the last person that should be moved.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

If Parayko got traded, Berube would be well within his rights to have a similar meltdown that Q had after they traded Panarin and Hjalmarsson

 

[Mike Liut]

Parayko is the last person that should be moved.

If I had to protect 2 Blues players, Parayko and Thomas are my choices. That’s how highly I view Parayko.

 

[Brian39]

If I had to protect 2 Blues players, Parayko and Thomas are my choices. That’s how highly I view Parayko.

I think I would go Parayko and ROR, but I'm close to also going Parayko and Thomas. I lean ROR because he is still under a good AAV for 3 more years and is a proven 70 point, top end two-way center. Thomas may develop into a better player, but there is also a good chance he doesn't. I'd rather take the sure bet, even if Thomas is cheaper and under team control longer. Since I'm bored, I decided to expand this "if I could only protect X guys" game.

Protect 1: Parayko
Protect 2: Parayko and ROR
Protect 3: Parayko, ROR and Thomas
Protect 4: Parayko, ROR, Thomas and Petro (assuming an extension for 8 years at $8.5M AAV. Petro doesn't make this list w/o an extension)
Protect 5: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro and Tarasenko
Protect 6: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, and Binner
Protect 7: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, and Schenn
Protect 8: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn and Kyrou
Protect 9: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn, Kyrou and Sunny
Protect 10: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn, Kyrou, Sunny and Dunn

If contracts weren't a consideration then Binner would be higher, but I have major concerns that Binner walks as a UFA unless we are willing to give out a seriously bad contract. His next contract will be his one and only chance to cash in. He made very little money before signing a 2 year deal this past summer and now this pandemic is going to seriously eat into the real-dollar earnings of that contract. When all is said and done, there is a very real chance that his career take-home pay going into UFA is less than $3M. I think him taking a substantial hometown discount is very, very unlikely, so there is a real possibility that keeping him will require way more money and term than you ever want to give a 28 year old goalie. I hope that market doesn't materialize, but Florida gave a 30 year old Bob $10M a year for 7 years, so who knows.

It feels weird having Tarasenko so low on this list, but I just can't justify putting him any higher.

 

[Celtic Note]

I think I would go Parayko and ROR, but I'm close to also going Parayko and Thomas. I lean ROR because he is still under a good AAV for 3 more years and is a proven 70 point, top end two-way center. Thomas may develop into a better player, but there is also a good chance he doesn't. I'd rather take the sure bet, even if Thomas is cheaper and under team control longer. Since I'm bored, I decided to expand this "if I could only protect X guys" game.

Protect 1: Parayko
Protect 2: Parayko and ROR
Protect 3: Parayko, ROR and Thomas
Protect 4: Parayko, ROR, Thomas and Petro (assuming an extension for 8 years at $8.5M AAV. Petro doesn't make this list w/o an extension)
Protect 5: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro and Tarasenko
Protect 6: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, and Binner
Protect 7: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, and Schenn
Protect 8: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn and Kyrou
Protect 9: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn, Kyrou and Sunny
Protect 10: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn, Kyrou, Sunny and Dunn

If contracts weren't a consideration then Binner would be higher, but I have major concerns that Binner walks as a UFA unless we are willing to give out a seriously bad contract. His next contract will be his one and only chance to cash in. He made very little money before signing a 2 year deal this past summer and now this pandemic is going to seriously eat into the real-dollar earnings of that contract. When all is said and done, there is a very real chance that his career take-home pay going into UFA is less than $3M. I think him taking a substantial hometown discount is very, very unlikely, so there is a real possibility that keeping him will require way more money and term than you ever want to give a 28 year old goalie. I hope that market doesn't materialize, but Florida gave a 30 year old Bob $10M a year for 7 years, so who knows.

It feels weird having Tarasenko so low on this list, but I just can't justify putting him any higher.

Schenn over Schwartz?

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think I would go Parayko and ROR, but I'm close to also going Parayko and Thomas. I lean ROR because he is still under a good AAV for 3 more years and is a proven 70 point, top end two-way center. Thomas may develop into a better player, but there is also a good chance he doesn't. I'd rather take the sure bet, even if Thomas is cheaper and under team control longer. Since I'm bored, I decided to expand this "if I could only protect X guys" game.

Protect 1: Parayko
Protect 2: Parayko and ROR
Protect 3: Parayko, ROR and Thomas
Protect 4: Parayko, ROR, Thomas and Petro (assuming an extension for 8 years at $8.5M AAV. Petro doesn't make this list w/o an extension)
Protect 5: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro and Tarasenko
Protect 6: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, and Binner
Protect 7: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, and Schenn
Protect 8: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn and Kyrou
Protect 9: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn, Kyrou and Sunny
Protect 10: Parayko, ROR, Thomas, Petro, Tarasenko, Binner, Schenn, Kyrou, Sunny and Dunn

If contracts weren't a consideration then Binner would be higher, but I have major concerns that Binner walks as a UFA unless we are willing to give out a seriously bad contract. His next contract will be his one and only chance to cash in. He made very little money before signing a 2 year deal this past summer and now this pandemic is going to seriously eat into the real-dollar earnings of that contract. When all is said and done, there is a very real chance that his career take-home pay going into UFA is less than $3M. I think him taking a substantial hometown discount is very, very unlikely, so there is a real possibility that keeping him will require way more money and term than you ever want to give a 28 year old goalie. I hope that market doesn't materialize, but Florida gave a 30 year old Bob $10M a year for 7 years, so who knows.

It feels weird having Tarasenko so low on this list, but I just can't justify putting him any higher.

I think the only change I would have is Schwartz ahead of some of the guys on the back-end.

In regards to ROR, it's perfectly reasonable to think that he plays well, well into his 30s. His game doesn't rely on speed, so as long as he doesn't completely fall off there, it won't affect his game. Plenty of guys like him have performed to top-line center caliber in their mid-30s. You could argue he's the top guy to protect.

 

[Brian39]

Schenn over Schwartz?

If Schwartz had Schenn's contract extension and Schenn was 1 year from UFA then I would absolutely swap them. But they don't. Contract status is a big consideration for my list and I have concerns about Schwartz either walking or requiring a pretty uncomfortable contract to extend. Binner's contract situation is the only reason our Cup-winning work horse starter is 6th on my list instead of being higher. In this fantasy-land scenario, I was trying to balance shot term considerations against long term considerations.

8 years of Schenn (with a couple of those years at the end likely hurting) is more worthy of protecting than 1 year of Schwartz (with the hope of an extension).

Sunny is ahead of Schwartz because 3 more years at $2.75M is incredible value for what Sunny provides.

Kyrou and Dunn are ahead of Schwartz on my list because they have 4 or 5 years of remaining team control, potential to improve and they don't have arbitration rights for their next contract so they should both provide good contributions for a cheap cost.

FWIW, if Schwartz got an extension identical to Schenn's he would immediately jump Schenn, Kyrou, Sunny and Dunn for me. I'd have to think long and hard about putting him ahead of Binner's 1 remaining year.