Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Shoving Mikkola into the first pairing without any grooming is the easiest way to destroy his progression.
Around The NHL Discussion 2019/20 - Part IV
- Thread starter Alklha
- Start date
- Status
Well give him at least chance. I have seen so many times vet > prospect in this franchise, when they both have played pretty much same level.
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
It would be better for him to start on the third pairing to get comfortable with the speed of the NHL before feeding him to the wolves.
He looked really sharp in those games what he did play and imo didn't look slow at all.
Ofc he'll start on 3rd pair, but if he has improve his game why not give opportunity. I don't see why he wouldn't work out. He played with Bortuzzo well enough. If not mistaking he increased in every game his TOI.
Majorityof1
Registered User
I mean, he is Finnish. Best to get the most out of him as possible before is sudden and horrendous regression.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,857
- 8,192
Or it could just be an example of why it wasn’t a good move by the coaching staff to play him on his off side.
Majorityof1
Registered User
Except he didn't look good on the right side either. The Dunn (LD) - Faulk (RD) was one of the worst, if not our worst, combination.
The bolded is false. Cap room wasn’t the sticking point in the negotiation. Listen to Pietro’s own words and the issue was the NMC and bonus structure. HE TOOK LESS MONEY TO LEAVE, by giving up the 8th year. Your hatred of Faulk is not justified by connecting it to Pietro’s departure.
Majorityof1
Registered User
We can't say for sure Faulk had nothing to do with Pietrangelo leaving. Pietrangelo could have felt less secure with the Blues and slightly insulted by the Faulk signing, making him more stubborn on his demand for an NMC. Armstrong could have been less willing to negotiate with Pietrangelo because we had, in his mind, 2 top-4 RHD in Faulk and Parayko. I agree with you in the sense that the Faulk signing didn't completely preclude re-signing Petro. However, it could have been a factor on both sides in why a deal was not reached.
LetsGoBooze
Buium or bust
- Jan 16, 2012
- 2,307
- 1,390
Thankyou. Couldnt have put it better, tired of all the tears. Pie coulda stayed, if thats what he really wanted.
Why would Petro feel less secure by us signing an obviously inferior D man? Maybe DA knew that Petro wasn't going to stay for anything less than a NMC for the entirety of the contract. Maybe that's why he started to assemble another workable D core. None of us really knows, but I think that it's obvious that no player outside of Connor McDavid is going to get a NMC until they're 39 from DA. It most likely hurts us in the short term, but I doubt it's anything like what a few of the people in this forum are thinking. In a few years we may very well be creating threads thanking DA for not putting us in a position like what the Hawks are in.
Majorityof1
Registered User
Workable? 
I love how the "Army can do know wrong" side always says "We don't know what happened, trust Armstorong" but they can make assumptions that make Army look better.
My "assumptions" were actually opinions. Why would Petro feel insecure about the Faulk signing? I'd really like to know.
I love how the "Army can do know wrong" side always says "We don't know what happened, trust Armstorong" but they can make assumptions that make Army look better.
LetsGoBooze
Buium or bust
- Jan 16, 2012
- 2,307
- 1,390
You know its been a turbulent offseason when even the 'around the nhl' thread is still all about the Blues...lol
Your scenario would make sense if the team had decided not to try to re-sign Pietro. But they did try, to the extent that Armstrong was willing to make exceptions to his stance about NMC and bonus money (not to the degree Pietro wanted, but it’s still an unprecedented offer from Armstrong).
What you’re describing is actually assigning MORE responsibility to Pietro than Faulk. If Faulk being here hurt Pietro’s feelings, but there was still a will and adequate assets to re-sign Pietro....and he left anyway, That’s not on Faulk. That’s on Pietro. If I storm off HF because I’m angry I saw you posting here, who is at fault for my departure?
I can sympathize with your point to the extent that Faulk’s presence could have theoretically changed Armstrong’s threshold in negotiations. But when Pietro leaves for LESS money, that argument is undermined.
For me, it’s not about defending Armstrong as much as looking for logical reasons each party made the choices they made. It doesn’t mean Armstrong’s approach was the right one, just looking to recreate the train of thought he went through.
I love how the "Army can do know wrong" side always says "We don't know what happened, trust Armstorong" but they can make assumptions that make Army look better.
Seems clear in hindsight he was pretty skeptical the were going to get a deal done, otherwise acquiring Faulk with no role on the team looks confusing. Why was he so skeptical? I think the difference is about how ready one is to believe Armstrong suddenly started making irrational moves.
Exactly. Army makes mistakes like any GM. But he is extremely rational. If he does something that on surface seems irrational, almost always reason we weren’t privy to at time. In hindsight Faulk trade was clearly bc he was skeptical of getting Petro resigned. We can question whether he made error but everything we know about him is that he isn’t just winging it.
Majorityof1
Registered User
When you make a supposition about something that actually happened but you just don't know the details, that is an assumption not an opinion. Armstrong either knew at the time of the Faulk trade that Pietrangelo was only going to sign with a full NMC or he didn't know. You can't have an opinion that he didn't know. Opinions are value judgements, guessing at facts without evidence is an assumption.
Faulk is younger than Pietrangelo. He was given a 7 year contract. Armstrong has gone on record with Backes and others that there is a maximum age he is comfortable having players signed past. Armstrong also likes to structure contracts in a way that makes it easier to move them at the end of the deal. How can Pietrangelo not feel threatened that Armstrong would try to move him at the end of his deal? He will reach the age Armstrong gets uncomfortable before Faulk and Parayko. Even if Petro never declined, Armstrong could move him before he expects him to decline to maximize value. Its not about current level of play at any point of the contract, but about how Armstrong would view that player's eventual decline.
Majorityof1
Registered User
Here it is, to prove my point. "Armstrong makes mistakes, of course those aren't really mistakes. You just don't know it all like he does." In other words, don't argue, just assume he never makes mistakes because you don't have all the facts.
That is not what I said. Locking in Allen when you made him starting goalie is rational. In hindsight, it was likely a mistake. You have a story you are trying to tell because he let your favorite player walk and you are sad. I get it. You want your Petro back. But don't put words in my mouth.
Agreed. Majorityofl's post was very insightful and informative.
- Status
