training camp 2023

[BrokenFace]

Krug is a pp specialist. Faulk scored 50 in 82 last year while Krug scored 32 in 63 games. Faulk has a better per game scoring despite Krug spending more time on pp1. Just give him the top powerplay and ship out Krug. For more cap room. Develop a young dman on pp2.

Easier said than Dunn.

 

[Brian39]

It's the D and the goaltending that's the real question. I know we harp on our D, and that's fair.....but I think many of us have overlooked the goaltending due to this. We are going into a season with a rookie for a backup goalie. He's looked super impressive up to this point, but it's been a small sample size and the grind of the NHL on rookies is real. Mix that with a starter in Binny who clearly plays better when getting more rest and you have a real potential for something to go off the rails if Hofer is ineffective or gets hurt.

This is exactly why I want my goalie prospect to get a 50+ game AHL season under his belt before getting called up to the show. Nothing can fully prepare a goalie for the change in speed from the AHL to the NHL and that speed demands a level of focus/tracking/movement that you don't need to hit in the AHL. But having that 50+ game season at least ensures that the goalie has played a bunch of pro-level games on nights when he is far from 100% physically and mentally.

Like I said, nothing fully prepares a kid for the NHL and there is no guarantee of success. But Hofer is just about as set up for success as a 23 year old rookie goalie can be. He played 53 games last year (47 AHL and 6 NHL), he got 41 the year before in a tandem (39 AHL and 2 NHL), and he got a small number of games 3 years ago in the weird COVID season. He took over an NHL net for a couple weeks last year to get a taste for the speed of the NHL and he isn't expected to handle 40+ starts right off the bat.

It's up to him now, but the organization has done everything to set him up to take the next step.

 

[Brian39]

I’d rather see Rosen over Perunovich. At least Rosen is consistent.

I'd rather see an extended run of games for Perunovich. This is a season where I'm fine if playing him costs us some standings points. I know that Rosen isn't in this team's long term future. I want to see Perunovich given a real chance to play his way out of the NHL before I give up on him completely.

 

[MissouriMook]

I'd rather see an extended run of games for Perunovich. This is a season where I'm fine if playing him costs us some standings points. I know that Rosen isn't in this team's long term future. I want to see Perunovich given a real chance to play his way out of the NHL before I give up on him completely.

And particularly this season when expectations are already relatively low, even at the organizational level.

 

[MissouriMook]

Easier said than Dunn.

If he stumbles or is hurt a lot this season (or both) I could see him being the first ever buyout in the DA era. Next offseason, a buyout would free up over $6M the first season and almost $4.2M and almost $3.7M the following two seasons. After that, you would have just over $2.3M in dead cap for the following three seasons. Six years is a long time to drag that burden, but you free up a ton of space immediately. If the cap gets in the $90M-$100M range during the three dead cap years, I suspect we won't be spending to the cap anyway so it is possible that the dead cap is irrelevant.

Alternatively, you could probably find a suitor in the offseason to take him as a PP specialist at 50% retention for a late round pick for his last three seasons. You lose a little cap space in the first three seasons, but aren't burdened with the three seasons of dead cap. Either way, the problem is solvable.

 

[stl76]

If he stumbles or is hurt a lot this season (or both) I could see him being the first ever buyout in the DA era. Next offseason, a buyout would free up over $6M the first season and almost $4.2M and almost $3.7M the following two seasons. After that, you would have just over $2.3M in dead cap for the following three seasons. Six years is a long time to drag that burden, but you free up a ton of space immediately. If the cap gets in the $90M-$100M range during the three dead cap years, I suspect we won't be spending to the cap anyway so it is possible that the dead cap is irrelevant.

Alternatively, you could probably find a suitor in the offseason to take him as a PP specialist at 50% retention for a late round pick for his last three seasons. You lose a little cap space in the first three seasons, but aren't burdened with the three seasons of dead cap. Either way, the problem is solvable.

Doubt he’d be the first buyout…heck there was already at least one trade in place for him that we know of.

 

[Xerloris]

think if Army has to use a buyout he may be fired shortly after. We don't have a billionaire owner that can piss money.

 

[oPlaiD]

I'm just going to pray to the hockey gods that dealing with the no trade clause and saying he wants to be here somehow elevates Krug to a level we've never before seen.

: (

 

[TK 421]

Torey Kruegger is staying for a bit, I'm still thinking we're going to have to give him the 8.5 in each of the next two seasons before Doug ships him to parts unknown.

 

[bobbythebrain]

Did Peronovich make the cut?

 

[STL fan in MN]

Did Peronovich make the cut?

Yes.

Blues kept 8 d-men on their 23-man roster, only 13 forwards.

Parayko
Faulk
Leddy
Krug
Scandella
Bortuzzo
Perunovich
Tucker

 

[Brian39]

think if Army has to use a buyout he may be fired shortly after. We don't have a billionaire owner that can piss money.

Blues ownership signed off on a $95M payroll this season for the opening night 23 man roster. Capfriendly has our current payroll estimate at $102M when you include AHL guys and guys on the season-opening IR. They also signed off on a Krug trade that would have seen the Blues adding $20.5M in salary commitments (adding $50M owed to Sanheim while removing $29.5M owed to Krug). Ownership has consistently signed off on 1-way contracts for guys who are near-locks to go to the AHL.

This ownership group very well may have an internal rule against buyouts, but it is just not true to say that it can't afford it. We don't have a multi-billionaire owner, but the combined net worth of our ownership absolutely makes it possible for them to 'piss money' for the betterment of the team.

I think a buyout is entirely possible. The salary structure of our team is very interesting and is set up to allow for some 'wasted' money down the line. A Krug buyout would save the team $14M real dollars over the next 3 seasons (2024/25-2026/27). It would then cost them an 'extra' $7M over the following 3 years (2027/28-2029/30). That timing is very convenient when you look at the way our long-term contracts are structured. Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, and Schenn are the only 4 players we have under contract for 2027/28. Their cap hit is a combined $29.25M but their actual salaries come in at a combined $18M.

We frontloaded the hell out of all our big contracts, which means ownership is looking at a payroll way over the cap number for the next couple years and then a payroll well under the cap number beyond that. A buyout that saves some real dollars on Krug in the short term in exchange for eating some real dollars down the line actually fits our long term salary budget incredibly well.

A buyout is last resort. Trading him with retention is an easier financial pill to swallow. But if it gets to a buyout, this ownership group can afford it and it actually makes a decent amount of financial sense. If Army gets fired in the next 2 years (which I think is unlikely), I think it would be the result of the team being bad and not because of a buyout.

 

[Xerloris]

Blues ownership signed off on a $95M payroll this season for the opening night 23 man roster. Capfriendly has our current payroll estimate at $102M when you include AHL guys and guys on the season-opening IR. They also signed off on a Krug trade that would have seen the Blues adding $20.5M in salary commitments (adding $50M owed to Sanheim while removing $29.5M owed to Krug). Ownership has consistently signed off on 1-way contracts for guys who are near-locks to go to the AHL.

This ownership group very well may have an internal rule against buyouts, but it is just not true to say that it can't afford it. We don't have a multi-billionaire owner, but the combined net worth of our ownership absolutely makes it possible for them to 'piss money' for the betterment of the team.

I think a buyout is entirely possible. The salary structure of our team is very interesting and is set up to allow for some 'wasted' money down the line. A Krug buyout would save the team $14M real dollars over the next 3 seasons (2024/25-2026/27). It would then cost them an 'extra' $7M over the following 3 years (2027/28-2029/30). That timing is very convenient when you look at the way our long-term contracts are structured. Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, and Schenn are the only 4 players we have under contract for 2027/28. Their cap hit is a combined $29.25M but their actual salaries come in at a combined $18M.

We frontloaded the hell out of all our big contracts, which means ownership is looking at a payroll way over the cap number for the next couple years and then a payroll well under the cap number beyond that. A buyout that saves some real dollars on Krug in the short term in exchange for eating some real dollars down the line actually fits our long term salary budget incredibly well.

A buyout is last resort. Trading him with retention is an easier financial pill to swallow. But if it gets to a buyout, this ownership group can afford it and it actually makes a decent amount of financial sense. If Army gets fired in the next 2 years (which I think is unlikely), I think it would be the result of the team being bad and not because of a buyout.

All you did was describe paying people to work for you while and being an asset. A buyout is paying someone not to play for you and not even being an asset in any regard.

 

[jura]

Did Peronovich make the cut?

 

[Brian39]

All you did was describe paying people to work for you while and being an asset. A buyout is paying someone not to play for you and not even being an asset in any regard.

The reality that employees, property, and/or contracts can hold a negative value is one of the most basic concepts in business. A thing that returns less value than the amount it costs the business is a liability, not an asset. Businesses pay for liabilities to go away all the time and that includes employees who have contracts that guarantee future earnings. "We'll pay you X to go away because keeping you here would cost us X+Y" is an extremely common business practice.

An employee providing less value with their work than the amount of their compensation package is a liability, not an asset.

When judging Krug's worth to the organization last year, he was a liability and not an asset. Barring a sizeable improvement to his play this season, the final 3 years of his contract will be a liability and not an asset when talking about what ownership can and can't afford.

It is ludicrous to suggest that considerations such as team payroll, cap space, and how players perform vs their salary and cap hits aren't relevant to whether a team can afford to buy a guy out. You claimed that the team can't afford to pay a guy not to play for us. Our history of retaining salary to facilitate trades refutes that. Our history of paying guys to play in the AHL refutes that. The team payroll and the structure of the payroll vs the cap calculation doesn't support it.

 

[Xerloris]

Our history of retaining salary to facilitate trades refutes that. Our history of paying guys to play in the AHL refutes that. The team payroll and the structure of the payroll vs the cap calculation doesn't support it.

please do tell me how long that salary retention lasts when we go that route and isn't that so we can get another asset in return?

Also, I'm sitting here watching so many people talk about how stupid it was to sign Krug and short sighted etc isn't it entirely possible that if Krug has to be bought out that ownership may just think Armstrongs short sightedness is detrimental to their bank accounts?

 

[Blueston]

please do tell me how long that salary retention lasts when we go that route and isn't that so we can get another asset in return?

Also, I'm sitting here watching so many people talk about how stupid it was to sign Krug and short sighted etc isn't it entirely possible that if Krug has to be bought out that ownership may just think Armstrongs short sightedness is detrimental to their bank accounts?

Army has made ownership a boatload of money. I think he has earned the right to be wrong on occasion, as he was with Krug.

 

[Xerloris]

Army has made ownership a boatload of money. I think he has earned the right to be wrong on occasion, as he was with Krug.

Of course, I agree completely but what I am saying is just as stupid as people thinking we're gonna buy out Krug.

 

[Mike Liut]

Krug isnt as bad as people think. it’s just that he’s about 2 million over paid. Army knew he wasn’t going to sign Petro and he was desperate for a Dman. If Krug played 3rd pairing and PP, he’d be fine.

 

[BlueDream]

Krug isnt as bad as people think. it’s just that he’s about 2 million over paid. Army knew he wasn’t going to sign Petro and he was desperate for a Dman. If Krug played 3rd pairing and PP, he’d be fine.

Well, he doesn’t currently play 3rd pair and he isn’t paid less. So that’s irrelevant.

 

[Mike Liut]

Well, he doesn’t currently play 3rd pair and he isn’t paid less. So that’s irrelevant.

im just saying he’s a good player, but paid too much. He’ll score 50 pts this year if he plays all 82. I just wish we had 2 better LD so he could play 3rd where he belongs.

 

[Majorityof1]

Krug isnt as bad as people think. it’s just that he’s about 2 million over paid. Army knew he wasn’t going to sign Petro and he was desperate for a Dman. If Krug played 3rd pairing and PP, he’d be fine.

Krug isn't as bad as people think based on what? His underlying stats suck. His eye test sucks. His usage is sheltered more than a turtle in his shell in a steel box, in a tank, parked in a bunker, and his stats still suck. People keep saying, he is just overpaid. But they provide no tangible evidence he doesn't suck other than a hope and a prayer.

He sucks at 90% of the game. He isn't even that great offensively at 5v5. He was tied for 76th last year at 5v5 P/60 (500+ minutes).. He is only really good on the PP, and last year he couldn't even do that well, 35th in PP P/60 (more than 40 minutes).

You know what he was top 10 in? 9th worst xGA/60 (500+ minutes) despite having a ridiculous 73.4% Ozone start rate. And that is what he was #1 at. The highest o-zone start rate of any D over 500 minutes. The #1 most sheltered D with over 500 minutes and still the 9th worst results. He f***ing sucks for any dollar amount.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Army has made ownership a boatload of money. I think he has earned the right to be wrong on occasion, as he was with Krug.

It wasn't wrong or right from where I sit, it was deemed necessary because Pie left. It wouldn't matter who or what he signed, he's going to hear criticism for it and I'm sure given the situation, he kinda knew he would. Operating from a position of weakness, not strength (meaning we needed someone and well... here we are).

 

[Xerloris]

Krug isn't as bad as people think based on what? His underlying stats suck. His eye test sucks. His usage is sheltered more than a turtle in his shell in a steel box, in a tank, parked in a bunker, and his stats still suck. People keep saying, he is just overpaid. But they provide no tangible evidence he doesn't suck other than a hope and a prayer.

He sucks at 90% of the game. He isn't even that great offensively at 5v5. He was tied for 76th last year at 5v5 P/60 (500+ minutes).. He is only really good on the PP, and last year he couldn't even do that well, 35th in PP P/60 (more than 40 minutes).

You know what he was top 10 in? 9th worst xGA/60 (500+ minutes) despite having a ridiculous 73.4% Ozone start rate. And that is what he was #1 at. The highest o-zone start rate of any D over 500 minutes. The #1 most sheltered D with over 500 minutes and still the 9th worst results. He f***ing sucks for any dollar amount.

ever hear the term you gotta put your players in a situation to succeed? Well we're not doing that for Krug. Not by choice but be desperate need. That does not mean he's not a good player at what he is good at.

 

[HighNote]

Krug isn't as bad as people think based on what? His underlying stats suck. His eye test sucks. His usage is sheltered more than a turtle in his shell in a steel box, in a tank, parked in a bunker, and his stats still suck. People keep saying, he is just overpaid. But they provide no tangible evidence he doesn't suck other than a hope and a prayer.

He sucks at 90% of the game. He isn't even that great offensively at 5v5. He was tied for 76th last year at 5v5 P/60 (500+ minutes).. He is only really good on the PP, and last year he couldn't even do that well, 35th in PP P/60 (more than 40 minutes).

You know what he was top 10 in? 9th worst xGA/60 (500+ minutes) despite having a ridiculous 73.4% Ozone start rate. And that is what he was #1 at. The highest o-zone start rate of any D over 500 minutes. The #1 most sheltered D with over 500 minutes and still the 9th worst results. He f***ing sucks for any dollar amount.

Lots of offensive zone starts doesn't equal most sheltered. You can get all the o-zone starts in the world, but if MacKinnon is on the dot and wins the faceoff, what good was it? And we were 24th in the league in faceoffs last season for reference.

He's getting too many minutes overall, but also too much exposure to opponents' top 6 players because he's mostly playing with Faulk. So yeah, he's not great, but he's going to look even worse with how we utilize him. We don't have much of a choice though, unless one of our young guys steps up big time. Maybe Scandella bounces back and we can run Leddy-Parayko, Scandella-Faulk, that would bump Krug down to the 3rd pairing so he's getting actual sheltered minutes against teams' bottom 6 for 12-15 minutes a game.

But even if we were able to give him the 3rd pairing usage we should be, he's being paid too much. This is why I think even those who give Krug some slack for looking terrible still believe he should be traded ASAP, me included. We're all in agreement that he needs to go.