Player Discussion Torey Krug V

[TwineTickler]

This x 1,000,000.

I will hate that trade and the excuses for it until I die.

To be fair Boychuk fell off pretty hard after that trade and did not live up to his contract... Chias hand was forced because of the cap situation so I get what you mean as far as that goes.

We can fit Krug no problem, but it's still "forecasting" down the road and assessing the team needs to determine whether a long term deal at 7-8 mil makes sense given their current team make up. If you ask me it absolutely doesn't. Package Krug to land a top 6 W (that maybe has C abilities for when Krejci leaves) and spend the money on that player. We are extremely deep on D. Quality D too. We are going to need some help up front and need that cap space to fix the forward crew, especially in 2 years. I am all on team trade Torey.... and again, I like Torey the person and player... I just think it's the right move for this franchise.

Should we put up a poll? Can we do that?

 

[GloryDaze4877]

This x 1,000,000.

I will hate that trade and the excuses for it until I die.

The timing was bad, but the Bruins were absolutely right not to give Boychuk $6m.

We are here debating whether or not the Bruins should pay Krug until he’s 35-36? Boychuk will be 36 in January and his contract has another two years on it after that.

Brutal deal.

 

[JOKER 192]

The player I target is Alex Tuch. The perfect 2 RW.

Krug is exactly what VGK need on their D corps.

Vegas has Stone and Smith so they have their 1,2 RW's. Won't hurt them more than it helps.

George is in full win now mode. Would probably even throw in a second rounder.

Cap hit not an issue.

No use keeping a PP specialist when you don't get PP's when it counts the most.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

The timing was bad, but the Bruins were absolutely right not to give Boychuk $6m.

We are here debating whether or not the Bruins should pay Krug until he’s 35-36? Boychuk will be 36 in January and his contract has another two years on it after that.

Brutal deal.

Boychuk turned around a pretty crappy franchise the guy is the catalyst for the Isles being a playoff team since he arrived. If your trying to say hes a 4 mil guy making 6 thats fine but hes not Backes an AHLer making 6 mil per. He was worth the 6 for a couple years of that deal.

We gave Seidenberg an extension a year before we had to and the deal became a trainwreck BEFORE it kicked in due to injury. If we chose Boychuk instead we don't miss the playoffs 2 years straight when the East was a lot more wide open than it is now.

JB mistake turned into Brandon Carlo though. Sort of similar to the mistake of thinking Phil Kessel wasn't worth 5 mil per turning into Seguin and Hamilton.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

The player I target is Alex Tuch. The perfect 2 RW.

Krug is exactly what VGK need on their D corps.

Vegas has Stone and Smith so they have their 1,2 RW's. Won't hurt them more than it helps.

George is in full win now mode. Would probably even throw in a second rounder.

Cap hit not an issue.

No use keeping a PP specialist when you don't get PP's when it counts the most.

IDK if they can resign Krug.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Size for one. The one that comes to mind right away.

This is extraordinarily disingenuous. You wouldn’t seriously suggest they’re basically the same player, with size being the primary difference... Come on.

Krug for Gardiner?

 

[JOKER 192]

IDK if they can resign Krug.

That would be a consideration for sure for them. Though your taking Tuch of their hands that's already 4.75M . Reeves I would think is expendable at 2.75.

You could throw in one of our many LHD on a ELC for the right return and that would help as well.

They don't have any big ticket player to sign next year either than Eakin who isn't going to get a big bump up from the 3.85M he's now making. It may be a little tight but it's doable IMO.

 

[JOKER 192]

This is extraordinarily disingenuous. You wouldn’t seriously suggest they’re basically the same player, with size being the primary difference... Come on.

Krug for Gardiner?

Ok, help me out here, a host of others have answered your question and with all do respect, none that are major pluses or minuses to me.

Gardiner is a good Dman. He has had the misfortune of making a big mistake when it counts x2. If you watch him on a regular bases you'd realize he's not as bad as he looked on those two occasions. Now is it the pressure that get's to him or is it just dumb luck? That is the question, to me it's the latter.

Production wise he's similar enough to Krug and hasn't had all the PP toi as Krug. Defensively he's as good at least and has a more imposing size.

In any case, could you answer your own question so maybe I could see what your getting at. I just can't think of what you may be eluding to.

 

[Kegs]

Ok, help me out here, a host of others have answered your question and with all do respect, none that are major pluses or minuses to me.

Gardiner is a good Dman. He has had the misfortune of making a big mistake when it counts x2. If you watch him on a regular bases you'd realize he's not as bad as he looked on those two occasions. Now is it the pressure that get's to him or is it just dumb luck? That is the question, to me it's the latter.

Production wise he's similar enough to Krug and hasn't had all the PP toi as Krug. Defensively he's as good at least and has a more imposing size.

In any case, could you answer your own question so maybe I could see what your getting at. I just can't think of what you may be eluding to.

GArdiner is soft and makes terrible decisions. Krug is infinitely better. U probably didn’t watch the games just the score card. He is substantially worse defensively. Let’s bigger slower guys around the outside which leads to set ups in front of the net. He is absolute garbage in his own end.
Gardener is an amazing skater with offence. But so is Krug. Krug also has a massive heart.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Ok, help me out here, a host of others have answered your question and with all do respect, none that are major pluses or minuses to me.

Gardiner is a good Dman. He has had the misfortune of making a big mistake when it counts x2. If you watch him on a regular bases you'd realize he's not as bad as he looked on those two occasions. Now is it the pressure that get's to him or is it just dumb luck? That is the question, to me it's the latter.

Production wise he's similar enough to Krug and hasn't had all the PP toi as Krug. Defensively he's as good at least and has a more imposing size.

In any case, could you answer your own question so maybe I could see what your getting at. I just can't think of what you may be eluding to.

YOU made the comparison. Not me!



Krug is a far better player. You obviously disagree and prefer Gardiner. I promise you’re in the minority.

 

[UncleRico]

YOU made the comparison. Not me!



Krug is a far better player. You obviously disagree and prefer Gardiner. I promise you’re in the minority.

Krug is better offensively but I agree they are on par with each other in the defensive zone.

 

[ON3M4N]

YOU made the comparison. Not me!



Krug is a far better player. You obviously disagree and prefer Gardiner. I promise you’re in the minority.

I mean in fairness, Gardiner has been one of the best assets for the Bruins the last two playoff series

 

[member 96824]

Letting krug walk in the offseason for nothing is worse than trading him.

highly disagree, because of the state of this core. It’s about maximizing the value of each season until Bergeron, Krejci, Rask, Marchand, and Chara are gone.

If it’s a deal that makes the Bruins better this year? Go for it. If not, pass and keep Torey. He’s your “rental”

 

[JoeIsAStud]

highly disagree, because of the state of this core. It’s about maximizing the value of each season until Bergeron, Krejci, Rask, Marchand, and Chara are gone.

If it’s a deal that makes the Bruins better this year? Go for it. If not, pass and keep Torey. He’s your “rental”

Agree, you can't live in fear of losing an asset to free agency, especially when your team is a legitimate threat. I thin they only have 3 realistic options

1) resign Krug long term

2) Trade Krug in a deal for a significant upgrade at a different position that is locked up longer term. This is a net nothing for this year as losing Krug will be a huge net downgrade for this season

3) Keep Krug and let him walk at the end of the year. Yes this is a loss of an asset, but then you gain 6.5-7 million in cap space to use elsewhere in 2020, so really you are not really losing him for nothing.

The only way you would ever consider dealing Krug for futures is if things go really badly,and somehow the Bruins are mostly out of contention at the deadline

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

It amazes me when people dislike a player they will drag in any JAG to prove their argument or that it worked in their fantasy league

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Ok, help me out here, a host of others have answered your question and with all do respect, none that are major pluses or minuses to me.

Gardiner is a good Dman. He has had the misfortune of making a big mistake when it counts x2. If you watch him on a regular bases you'd realize he's not as bad as he looked on those two occasions. Now is it the pressure that get's to him or is it just dumb luck? That is the question, to me it's the latter.

Production wise he's similar enough to Krug and hasn't had all the PP toi as Krug. Defensively he's as good at least and has a more imposing size.

In any case, could you answer your own question so maybe I could see what your getting at. I just can't think of what you may be eluding to.

Yeah Carolina got a good deal on Gardiner he'll be fine there and I'd take him over Faulk or Hamilton. They got unlucky Anaheim didn't offer Faulk enough to get him to waive.

If Krug gets a huge deal he could turn into a Backes and this market could really turn on the guy like Toronto with Gardiner. Right now his stock couldn't be higher after the last playoff run but a year ago he struggled defensively in the postseason.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Yeah Carolina got a good deal on Gardiner he'll be fine there and I'd take him over Faulk or Hamilton. They got unlucky Anaheim didn't offer Faulk enough to get him to waive.

If Krug gets a huge deal he could turn into a Backes and this market could really turn on the guy like Toronto with Gardiner. Right now his stock couldn't be higher after the last playoff run but a year ago he struggled defensively in the postseason.

How in the name of God are you making a comparison of Krug to Backes?

 

[UncleRico]

highly disagree, because of the state of this core. It’s about maximizing the value of each season until Bergeron, Krejci, Rask, Marchand, and Chara are gone.

If it’s a deal that makes the Bruins better this year? Go for it. If not, pass and keep Torey. He’s your “rental”

If the idea was to maximize the value of each season, Sweeney would have found a way to move backes contract and bring in 2nd line help for Krejci. Clearly the idea of management is to compete now while also having the pieces to compete after the bergy/krejci/Rask era

 

[JOKER 192]

YOU made the comparison. Not me!



Krug is a far better player. You obviously disagree and prefer Gardiner. I promise you’re in the minority.

Na,na,na don't put words in my mouth. I prefer Krug as well,though the difference is not as great as you make it. The point I was trying to make was that most people had Gardiner signing for 6-7M this off season and he ended up signing for 4M. After watching fail after fail , GM's are finally catching on and they're reluctant to pay older players they won't fair as well as they have in the past going forward.

By the way , your the one that asked what the difference was.

 

[DKH]

highly disagree, because of the state of this core. It’s about maximizing the value of each season until Bergeron, Krejci, Rask, Marchand, and Chara are gone.

If it’s a deal that makes the Bruins better this year? Go for it. If not, pass and keep Torey. He’s your “rental”

We got bingo

 

[Over the volcano]

Yeah Carolina got a good deal on Gardiner he'll be fine there and I'd take him over Faulk or Hamilton. They got unlucky Anaheim didn't offer Faulk enough to get him to waive.

If Krug gets a huge deal he could turn into a Backes and this market could really turn on the guy like Toronto with Gardiner. Right now his stock couldn't be higher after the last playoff run but a year ago he struggled defensively in the postseason.

A year ago he was over a PPG in the postseason and the team fell apart after he was knocked out with a broken ankle. . .

 

[member 96824]

If the idea was to maximize the value of each season, Sweeney would have found a way to move backes contract and bring in 2nd line help for Krejci. Clearly the idea of management is to compete now while also having the pieces to compete after the bergy/krejci/Rask era

Completely different scenario, but for the sake of discussion: I don’t doubt they tried to move Backes..we don’t even know if a Backes deal was on the table or what the asks out there were if there was one. Maybe it’s “yeah we’ll take Backes but you have to send us Jake DeBrusk as well” then what do you do?

maybe they tried and determined max value was just keeping him.

what assets do you anticipate getting back for Krug if you trade him just to get something in return? Do they help maximize Bergeron/Chara? If not..do you consider moving those two as well since they will never be more valuable than they are right now? You have to if the focus is on asset management and not icing the best team possible, right?

To me, there are three phases of hockey management: Asset gather, asset manage, and window maximization.

Asset gather: you suck, get high picks, sell at deadlines
Asset manage: you have a core, your team isn’t there yet though. Assess who will be a part of the next cup run and get value for those who won’t
Window maximize: you’re there. Go get a cup and squeeze everything you can from the group you have.

I’m 100% in the asset management camp when the time is right. and I’m pretty insufferable about it. I was screaming from the rooftops to trade Loui, Lucic, and Carl Soderberg for anything because the team was going no where and it was clear they wouldn’t be part of the next cup run. That was met with contention about how you can’t go into the locker room and tell players and staff that you’re giving up because it’ll hurt their feelings and other BS.

Now is not that time. It’s pedal to the metal time. You’ll know when it’s that time cause people will be saying things like “if we just get in, anything can happen” . You have a window, maximize it. The only Krug trade that makes sense is one that gives the Bruins a better team than they had for 2019-20.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Na,na,na don't put words in my mouth. I prefer Krug as well,though the difference is not as great as you make it. The point I was trying to make was that most people had Gardiner signing for 6-7M this off season and he ended up signing for 4M. After watching fail after fail , GM's are finally catching on and they're reluctant to pay older players they won't fair as well as they have in the past going forward.

By the way , your the one that asked what the difference was.

I’m not putting words in your mouth. I asked you a question and you answered it. Twice.

Gardiner took his contract because teams know his value.

Krug will sign a much higher contract for the same reason.

 

[ODAAT]

think Krug and DS will come to a deal and one that will be more than fair to the player and not a massive hit on the cap, just a gut feeling

 

[don]

Agree, you can't live in fear of losing an asset to free agency, especially when your team is a legitimate threat. I thin they only have 3 realistic options

1) resign Krug long term

2) Trade Krug in a deal for a significant upgrade at a different position that is locked up longer term. This is a net nothing for this year as losing Krug will be a huge net downgrade for this season

3) Keep Krug and let him walk at the end of the year. Yes this is a loss of an asset, but then you gain 6.5-7 million in cap space to use elsewhere in 2020, so really you are not really losing him for nothing.

The only way you would ever consider dealing Krug for futures is if things go really badly,and somehow the Bruins are mostly out of contention at the deadline

I would add a 4th. IMO, a larger problem in the near future is Chara retiring and us not having his replacement on hand. I'm all for trading Krug, or most anyone else, to improve the team, however, I'd only do it for long term stability. My 4th would be for a young #1 potential LHD and possibly a #2 C or RW.

From VGK I'd settle for McNabb and Roy. Tuch would be nice but I don't see them giving him up.