OT: Provorov comparison to CP 55

[jjniner]

I would love someone in the know, with much more insider hockey knowledge than me.. to break down a comparison of Provorov and CP 55. From my blue tinted glasses, CP is a much better D man. My thought is if Provorov got that much in a trade, what is CP worth?

Click to read more...

 

[PJJJP]

Somewhere in between he's a trash washed up player who the blues would have to pay people to take him and a quality defensemen who just gets overwhelmed with his minutes and QOC and would look better with better structure, more support and more balanced minutes

 

[Blueston]

CP is far superior player. They both struggle a bit in offensive zone and aren’t great fueling transition with passing, but cp is far superior in d zone. And is great guy while Provo is by all accounts not (he is apparently not well liked in the room and pouty when dropped from first pp unit even though he was awful on pp). Length of cap contract might scare people but still wouldn’t be enough to make me prefer Provo who has been poor player for several years.

 

[Brian39]

There age and contracts are different enough that it is pretty hard to compare their trade value even if you get an accurate comparison of them as players.

Provorov is 26 and has 2 years left on his deal at $6.75M a year. A decent chunk of the value returned to Philly in the trade was because Columbus got him at a $4.725M cap hit and Philly took on a bunch of dead money. He has no trade protection, so he couldn't limit destinations.

Parayko is 30 years old with 7 years left on his deal at $6.5M a year. Retention on 7 years is a much, much, much different story than it is for 2 years. He also has a full NTC, so he can limit destinations.

Provorov's contract makes it so that Columbus can assess the player for the next 12-18 months and then decide whether he is in their long-term plans. If he is, they can sign him to an extension that starts when he is 28. The decline is still far away. If not, he can be easily traded as a renta to recoup most the value they traded to get him. Parayko's contract locks the receiving team into the player no matter what. If he doesn't work out, it will be hard for them to recoup value as there will still be 5+ years left, a full NTC still in place and he'll be old enough that decline is on the horizon.

Even if they were identical player on-ice, their age and contract status makes them really poor comps because the the Venn diagram of teams looking to acquire them might be separate circles.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

There age and contracts are different enough that it is pretty hard to compare their trade value even if you get an accurate comparison of them as players.

Provorov is 26 and has 2 years left on his deal at $6.75M a year. A decent chunk of the value returned to Philly in the trade was because Columbus got him at a $4.725M cap hit and Philly took on a bunch of dead money. He has no trade protection, so he couldn't limit destinations.

Parayko is 30 years old with 7 years left on his deal at $6.5M a year. Retention on 7 years is a much, much, much different story than it is for 2 years. He also has a full NTC, so he can limit destinations.

Provorov's contract makes it so that Columbus can assess the player for the next 12-18 months and then decide whether he is in their long-term plans. If he is, they can sign him to an extension that starts when he is 28. The decline is still far away. If not, he can be easily traded as a renta to recoup most the value they traded to get him. Parayko's contract locks the receiving team into the player no matter what. If he doesn't work out, it will be hard for them to recoup value as there will still be 5+ years left, a full NTC still in place and he'll be old enough that decline is on the horizon.

Even if they were identical player on-ice, their age and contract status makes them really poor comps because the the Venn diagram of teams looking to acquire them might be separate circles.

This is it. In a nutshell, the only player you can really compare Parayko to is the monster contract that Edmonton’s number one defenseman has. The term of his deal is just ridiculous. Like the money in Krugs, do players just not want to come to St. Louis? Why do we have to pay this much? We are kind of in a position where the only thing we can do is draft talent around them that is better than what they are and cut their minutes or hope they contribute significantly better. Find someway CP might be worth the money and term to play hockey again. Maybe he can find his inner Jaybo. find someone that can just be Krugs babysitter and him be successful. I am OK with the idea of just being mediocre for a few years until these contracts go away and just develop the players from your draft capital you require at the deadline every year. I pretty much have to be, unless of course you make Tonya Harding, the defense coach.

 

[Blueston]

This is it. In a nutshell, the only player you can really compare Parayko to is the monster contract that Edmonton’s number one defenseman has. The term of his deal is just ridiculous. Like the money in Krugs, do players just not want to come to St. Louis? Why do we have to pay this much? We are kind of in a position where the only thing we can do is draft talent around them that is better than what they are and cut their minutes or hope they contribute significantly better. Find someway CP might be worth the money and term to play hockey again. Maybe he can find his inner Jaybo. find someone that can just be Krugs babysitter and him be successful. I am OK with the idea of just being mediocre for a few years until these contracts go away and just develop the players from your draft capital you require at the deadline every year. I pretty much have to be, unless of course you make Tonya Harding, the defense coach.

Hard disagree. Nurse is making over $2mm more annually. Heck, Severson is signing for nearly what Parayko got. Parayko is worth far more than $6.5mm annually, but to get the AAV down we went long. I wouldn’t mind dealing him because I think he can return value and his contract is no longer optimized for our window, but there is hardly anyone in the league that would perform better than he has with the usage we have given him.

 

[PJJJP]

Hard disagree. Nurse is making over $2mm more annually. Heck, Severson is signing for nearly what Parayko got. Parayko is worth far more than $6.5mm annually, but to get the AAV down we went long. I wouldn’t mind dealing him because I think he can return value and his contract is no longer optimized for our window, but there is hardly anyone in the league that would perform better than he has with the usage we have given him.

I just want a new assistant coach to put a new structure in place and lessen the workload on Parayko. Dunno why Berube/Van Ryn were trying to run him into the ground. While I don't think Parayko will ever be the defensemen he was, I still think he is a good 2nd pairing guy

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

Hard disagree. Nurse is making over $2mm more annually. Heck, Severson is signing for nearly what Parayko got. Parayko is worth far more than $6.5mm annually, but to get the AAV down we went long. I wouldn’t mind dealing him because I think he can return value and his contract is no longer optimized for our window, but there is hardly anyone in the league that would perform better than he has with the usage we have given him.

The term kills the deal. Not the dollars.

 

[Brian39]

This is it. In a nutshell, the only player you can really compare Parayko to is the monster contract that Edmonton’s number one defenseman has. The term of his deal is just ridiculous. Like the money in Krugs, do players just not want to come to St. Louis? Why do we have to pay this much?

Not even close to true. There are several comps. Looking at the comps, it is painfully clear that the term isn't ridiculous, but is actually very much the market norm.

This is the full list of D men around the league making $6-$7M who signed contracts that began when they were 28-31:

Vlasic: $7M AAV (9.33% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 39 years old.

McDonagh: $6.75M (8.49% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Parayko: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 37 years old (although he won't turn 37 until May of the contract's final season).

Krug: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Lindholm: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Faulk: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 35 years old.

Ellis: $6.25M (7.86% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Weegar: $6.25M (7.58% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 37 years old.

Severson: $6.25M (7.58%) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Pulock: $6.15M (7.55% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 35 years old.

Brodin: $6M (7.36% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 34 years old.

Myers: $6M (7.36% of the cap) x 5 years on a deal that takes him to 34 years old.

Giving out the term is very much required to get these kinds of guys into the $6M-$7M range. I've disliked the Krug contract since we signed it, but he was the 2nd best UFA D on the market behind the guy we walked away from who was clearly going to get $8M+. Those don't come cheap. Signing good D men in their late 20s and very early 30s means that you are maxing out the term. That's not unique to St. Louis. That is the NHL free agent marketplace.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

Not even close to true. There are several comps. Looking at the comps, it is painfully clear that the term isn't ridiculous, but is actually very much the market norm.

This is the full list of D men around the league making $6-$7M who signed contracts that began when they were 28-31:

Vlasic: $7M AAV (9.33% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 39 years old.

McDonagh: $6.75M (8.49% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Parayko: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 37 years old (although he won't turn 37 until May of the contract's final season).

Krug: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Lindholm: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Faulk: $6.5M (7.98% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 35 years old.

Ellis: $6.25M (7.86% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Weegar: $6.25M (7.58% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 37 years old.

Severson: $6.25M (7.58%) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 36 years old.

Pulock: $6.15M (7.55% of the cap) x 8 years on a deal that takes him to 35 years old.

Brodin: $6M (7.36% of the cap) x 7 years on a deal that takes him to 34 years old.

Myers: $6M (7.36% of the cap) x 5 years on a deal that takes him to 34 years old.

Giving out the term is very much required to get these kinds of guys into the $6M-$7M range. I've disliked the Krug contract since we signed it, but he was the 2nd best UFA D on the market behind the guy we walked away from who was clearly going to get $8M+. Those don't come cheap. Signing good D men in their late 20s and very early 30s means that you are maxing out the term. That's not unique to St. Louis. That is the NHL free agent marketplace.

I guess I can’t wait for 3 more first round draft picks then.

 

[Xerloris]

Giving out the term is very much required to get these kinds of guys into the $6M-$7M range. I've disliked the Krug contract since we signed it, but he was the 2nd best UFA D on the market behind the guy we walked away from who was clearly going to get $8M+. Those don't come cheap. Signing good D men in their late 20s and very early 30s means that you are maxing out the term. That's not unique to St. Louis. That is the NHL free agent marketplace.

We didn't walk away from anyone, he walked away from us.

 

[GoldenSeal]

We didn't walk away from anyone, he walked away from us.

He asked for something we should have given and we didn’t and the fact is, what we need is someone like him but we didn’t have a plan and ended up with Krug and now we have to burn out Colt on the top pairings because our blueline is trash and would be worse if Faulk wasn’t constantly playing far above his weight class.

Now we’re stuck spending that same or similar money and perks anyway on a player(s) who may or may not work out as well as we need them to.

 

[Xerloris]

He asked for something we should have given and we didn’t and the fact is, what we need is someone like him but we didn’t have a plan and ended up with Krug and now we have to burn out Colt on the top pairings because our blueline is trash and would be worse if Faulk wasn’t constantly playing far above his weight class.

Now we’re stuck spending that same or similar money and perks anyway on a player(s) who may or may not work out as well as we need them to.

Our right side D is perfectly fine. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Pietrangelo is also a right side D. How do you expect having another right side D to fix our left side, the side that's the actual problem? Also I would like to ask, if someone is constantly playing above their weight class, when does that actually become their weight class?

If Pietrangelo or Parayko or Faulk were LD, I would almost guarantee we would have kept Pietrangelo and I would absolutely be flipping my shit about him walking but he's not so much better than Faulk or Parayko that he would have single handedly changed our team right now. We would still suck. Good for him for getting a shot at another cup and frankly, the only reason I can't stand him is because of a certain person here that for over a year wouldn't shut the f*** up about him.


Oh and do you know HOW I know our team would still suck right now even if we had Pietrangelo? Because our Defense sucked in 2018/19 for the first half of the season even with Pietrangelo and Jbo Because the coaching sunk the team, just like the coaching is sinking us now and no amount of good Dmen will fix a tank job caused by the coaching.

 

[Brian39]

Our right side D is perfectly fine. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Pietrangelo is also a right side D. How do you expect having another right side D to fix our left side, the side that's the actual problem? Also I would like to ask, if someone is constantly playing above their weight class, when does that actually become their weight class?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in leagues with salary caps, free agency, and trading the decisions made at one position very often wind up impacting other positions.

The Faulk acquisition and extension was one of two things. It was either insurance in case we couldn't reach a Petro agreement or it was a proactive long-term replacement for Petro because Army already knew that there wasn't a deal to be reached. I tend to think it was insurance. But either way, it was an acquisition clearly motivated by not being comfortable with extending Petro at market value.

Let's imagine we extended Petro for the contract he got from Vegas (or potentially a slightly lesser AAV with the extra year tacked on). This helps the LD today a few ways.

First, Petro is a better #1D than anyone on our roster and can do more with a lesser partner than either of Parayko or Faulk. The caliber of LHD man we need to put with him to make an effective top pair is less than the guy we need to put next to Parayko or Faulk.

Second, it would have meant one of two things. Option 1: we never acquire/extend Faulk. Bokk can be used for something else (maybe a LD at some point) and today we have Petro/Parayko still with a lot of term. Option 2: We do acquire/extend Faulk and as of 2020 have Petro/Faulk locked up long term. We then have the ability to trade Parayko with either 1 or 2 years left of term for an absolute haul (some of which could address the left side). Or we let him walk after trying to go for a couple runs and still have Petro/Faulk on the right side today. Either way, the right side is in better shape than our current right side that you described as simly 'perfectly fine.'

Third, we're not signing Krug in a world where we extended Petro. Whether Faulk was here at that point or not, we simply wouldn't have had the cap space. Which means Dunn gets a chance to step into the offensive D role that year instead of all the sheltered minutes going to Krug.

In a perfect world, we'd have extended Petro, never acquired Faulk, never signed Krug, and protected Petro/Parayko/Dunn at the expansion draft. Those three cost $19.3M against the cap this season, which is $200k less than we spent on Parayko/Faulk/Krug. In a less perfect world, we'd have had Petro/Faulk/Dunn (still $200k more) and a boatload of assets from trading Parayko in 2020 in preparation of the expansion draft.

The D as a whole pretty clearly would be in better shape with that trio than the Parayko/Faulk/Krug trio we actually have.

Oh and do you know HOW I know our team would still suck right now even if we had Pietrangelo? Because our Defense sucked in 2018/19 for the first half of the season even with Pietrangelo and Jbo Because the coaching sunk the team, just like the coaching is sinking us now and no amount of good Dmen will fix a tank job caused by the coaching.

When Yeo was fired, every one of our defensive metrics (expected goals against, scoring chances against, high danger chances against, shots against) was average or better. It was the scoring and team save percentage that was near the bottom of the league. The coaching change made a large improvement to the D, but the defense absolutely didn't suck before then. The were average (or maybe slightly above average) and then the structural change led to them being top 5.

I agree with you that we had a big structural issue defensively this year that made our group play worse than the sum of its parts. But the play of the D this year was significantly worse than the play of any Blues team from the time we hired Hitch to the time Petro left. There is no extended stretch from that era comparable to what we watched this year.

 

[Xerloris]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in leagues with salary caps, free agency, and trading the decisions made at one position very often wind up impacting other positions.

The Faulk acquisition and extension was one of two things. It was either insurance in case we couldn't reach a Petro agreement or it was a proactive long-term replacement for Petro because Army already knew that there wasn't a deal to be reached. I tend to think it was insurance. But either way, it was an acquisition clearly motivated by not being comfortable with extending Petro at market value.

Let's imagine we extended Petro for the contract he got from Vegas (or potentially a slightly lesser AAV with the extra year tacked on). This helps the LD today a few ways.

First, Petro is a better #1D than anyone on our roster and can do more with a lesser partner than either of Parayko or Faulk. The caliber of LHD man we need to put with him to make an effective top pair is less than the guy we need to put next to Parayko or Faulk.

Second, it would have meant one of two things. Option 1: we never acquire/extend Faulk. Bokk can be used for something else (maybe a LD at some point) and today we have Petro/Parayko still with a lot of term. Option 2: We do acquire/extend Faulk and as of 2020 have Petro/Faulk locked up long term. We then have the ability to trade Parayko with either 1 or 2 years left of term for an absolute haul (some of which could address the left side). Or we let him walk after trying to go for a couple runs and still have Petro/Faulk on the right side today. Either way, the right side is in better shape than our current right side that you described as simly 'perfectly fine.'

Third, we're not signing Krug in a world where we extended Petro. Whether Faulk was here at that point or not, we simply wouldn't have had the cap space. Which means Dunn gets a chance to step into the offensive D role that year instead of all the sheltered minutes going to Krug.

In a perfect world, we'd have extended Petro, never acquired Faulk, never signed Krug, and protected Petro/Parayko/Dunn at the expansion draft. Those three cost $19.3M against the cap this season, which is $200k less than we spent on Parayko/Faulk/Krug. In a less perfect world, we'd have had Petro/Faulk/Dunn (still $200k more) and a boatload of assets from trading Parayko in 2020 in preparation of the expansion draft.

The D as a whole pretty clearly would be in better shape with that trio than the Parayko/Faulk/Krug trio we actually have.


When Yeo was fired, every one of our defensive metrics (expected goals against, scoring chances against, high danger chances against, shots against) was average or better. It was the scoring and team save percentage that was near the bottom of the league. The coaching change made a large improvement to the D, but the defense absolutely didn't suck before then. The were average (or maybe slightly above average) and then the structural change led to them being top 5.

I agree with you that we had a big structural issue defensively this year that made our group play worse than the sum of its parts. But the play of the D this year was significantly worse than the play of any Blues team from the time we hired Hitch to the time Petro left. There is no extended stretch from that era comparable to what we watched this year.

I think Faulk would have returned a better package than Eddy and Bokk could have. So even if all we did was flip Faulk I think it was a good move. I still don't think Pietrangelo is so much better than Faulk or Parayko that he would improve our defense to the point of contender status. Not without a #1LD. Wether that LD played with him or not is not my point, we need someone to anchor the left side at some point.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

I think Faulk would have returned a better package than Eddy and Bokk could have. So even if all we did was flip Faulk I think it was a good move. I still don't think Pietrangelo is so much better than Faulk or Parayko that he would improve our defense to the point of contender status. Not without a #1LD. Wether that LD played with him or not is not my point, we need someone to anchor the left side at some point.

Petro didn’t flourish into a contender until he wasn’t the #1 shutdown pairing. JBo and Parayko were. He also was miscast. He did much better with a Gunnarsson covering his ass and blocking shots. Part of the problem now. Leddy Parayko Faulk and Krug all need a more stay at home partner. Vegas runs six d deep. He’s a piece not the puzzle.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Our right side D is perfectly fine. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Pietrangelo is also a right side D. How do you expect having another right side D to fix our left side, the side that's the actual problem? Also I would like to ask, if someone is constantly playing above their weight class, when does that actually become their weight class?

If Pietrangelo or Parayko or Faulk were LD, I would almost guarantee we would have kept Pietrangelo and I would absolutely be flipping my shit about him walking but he's not so much better than Faulk or Parayko that he would have single handedly changed our team right now. We would still suck. Good for him for getting a shot at another cup and frankly, the only reason I can't stand him is because of a certain person here that for over a year wouldn't shut the f*** up about him.


Oh and do you know HOW I know our team would still suck right now even if we had Pietrangelo? Because our Defense sucked in 2018/19 for the first half of the season even with Pietrangelo and Jbo Because the coaching sunk the team, just like the coaching is sinking us now and no amount of good Dmen will fix a tank job caused by the coaching.

We don’t have a 1D of any kind and Colt is forced to play a ridiculous amount of minutes because HE has to shelter. Having Pie or a similar quality 1D with Colt would do wonders to your blueline, regardless of which side, unless you’re going to sit here and tell me how much of an upgrade Krug is over him so I can laugh.

I think Faulk would have returned a better package than Eddy and Bokk could have. So even if all we did was flip Faulk I think it was a good move. I still don't think Pietrangelo is so much better than Faulk or Parayko that he would improve our defense to the point of contender status. Not without a #1LD. Wether that LD played with him or not is not my point, we need someone to anchor the left side at some point.

I would agree. Sell high on Faulk.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

I think Faulk would have returned a better package than Eddy and Bokk could have. So even if all we did was flip Faulk I think it was a good move. I still don't think Pietrangelo is so much better than Faulk or Parayko that he would improve our defense to the point of contender status. Not without a #1LD. Wether that LD played with him or not is not my point, we need someone to anchor the left side at some point.

And they should’ve moved Faulk instead, unless they already knew they couldn’t resign Petro and held on to an unrealistic hope that he wouldn’t run for the money.

 

[PocketNines]

Our right side D is perfectly fine. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Pietrangelo is also a right side D. How do you expect having another right side D to fix our left side, the side that's the actual problem? Also I would like to ask, if someone is constantly playing above their weight class, when does that actually become their weight class?

If Pietrangelo or Parayko or Faulk were LD, I would almost guarantee we would have kept Pietrangelo and I would absolutely be flipping my shit about him walking but he's not so much better than Faulk or Parayko that he would have single handedly changed our team right now. We would still suck. Good for him for getting a shot at another cup and frankly, the only reason I can't stand him is because of a certain person here that for over a year wouldn't shut the f*** up about him.


Oh and do you know HOW I know our team would still suck right now even if we had Pietrangelo? Because our Defense sucked in 2018/19 for the first half of the season even with Pietrangelo and Jbo Because the coaching sunk the team, just like the coaching is sinking us now and no amount of good Dmen will fix a tank job caused by the coaching.

It's reaching the point of being embarrassing. You watch hockey. How do you not differentiate greatness? You and Doug Armstrong. Clueless.

 

[Xerloris]

It's reaching the point of being embarrassing. You watch hockey. How do you not differentiate greatness? You and Doug Armstrong. Clueless.

He's not even the best defenseman of his career. Not to even mention in history. For someone you consider so great, where are his individual awards? All he can do is win a trophy that relies on a TEAM effort, when it comes to individual greatness he sure is lacking.

 

[DatDude44]

This isn’t heading in a good direction….

 

[GoldenSeal]

He's not even the best defenseman of his career. Not to even mention in history. For someone you consider so great, where are his individual awards? All he can do is win a trophy that relies on a TEAM effort, when it comes to individual greatness he sure is lacking.

Ooh! I'll play this game:

This is not about who the best or better player or whatever have you, The question goes like this:

Who on our blueline is as good as or better than Pie?

No one is the correct answer.

We are left with a blueline that needs sheltering so badly that we have to overload Colt with minutes to try and compensate to the point that we need to bring in a 1D, even if it's on Colt's 'side', to help split up the minutes so the other players on the blueline can play 'their game'.

So now we're stuck having to do what? Try to acquire a player at or above Pie's level. And that's been a catch-22 style of disaster since we let him walk. We could have given him what he asked for and wouldn't be as concerned about our defense and not had Krug. And it wouldn't have costed us much more.

I know Army likes control but which do you need more of: Control or Compete. Right now we're not competing, so that control is phyrrical at best.

 

[Xerloris]

Ooh! I'll play this game:

This is not about who the best or better plateror whatever have you, The question goes like this:

Who on our blueline is as good as or better than Pie?

No one is the correct answer.

We are left with a blueline that needs sheltering so badly that we have to overload Colt with minutes to try and compensate to the point that we need to bring in a 1D, even if it's on Colt's 'side', to help split up the minutes so the other players on the blueline can play 'their game'.

So now we're stuck having to do what? Try to acquire a player at or above Pie's level. And that's been a catch-22 style of disaster since we let him walk. We could have given him what he asked for and wouldn't be as concerned about our defense and not had Krug. And it wouldn't have costed us much more.

I know Army likes control but which do you need more of: Control or Compete. Right now we're not competing, so that control is phyrrical at best.

Like I said, he alone is not so much better than Parayko or Faulk that he alone would have made us a contender so crying about him is pointless.

 

[PJJJP]

Honestly I'd take Scotty P and Tucker over Pietrangelo and Parayko. Don't know why people are fussing this much over these two scrubs when we have the golden kids ready to go

 

[DatDude44]

Like I said, he alone is not so much better than Parayko or Faulk that he alone would have made us a contender so crying about him is pointless.

Pietrangelos consistently been a top 5-10 two way defenceman in the league. He was also our captain of our cup team and scored the GWG in game 7. The domino effect of keeping pietrangelo couldve meant no Faulk, no Krug and instead of losing Dunn to Seattle, we lose Edmunson most likely. Not only is he a large upgrade on those two, our team is most likely in way better shape overall

And our D-core is something along the lines of:
Dunn-Petro
Leddy/xxx-Parayko
Scandella-Peru/Bortz