I get that he’s not a superstar but I guess I just didn’t see a need to make him expendable. He filled a much larger role than Reaves playing 3rd line during the Cup run. He only made 900K. We paid Kyle Clifford more money a year later to fill the same role but not as well. Less than ideal.
He would have put up 60 points the year before if not for Covid. I wish he was a bit more consistent but he’s a very good 200 foot player that can be a 55-60 point guy. He’s pretty much Alex Steen.
The last sentence is the big part. He tried replacing Pietrangelo before he was even gone. Just re-sign Pietrangelo. Keep your Cup core and strength together. That should have been priority number one.
There was no need to bring in a 3rd good RH dman on a big contract. That wasn’t a glaring weakness coming off the Cup win. It was like the last thing we needed. It always felt like Army was legit just collecting a player to show Petro that we had the pieces to move on.
Any 3rd or 4th line player who is a veteran should by definition, IMO, be expendable. They're just a guy at that point. I get the sentimental tie with Maroon, but him leaving doesn't make or break the team. Really nice guy and a local player, but he'd blocking room for younger players.
Schwartz, for both 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, when extrapolating for a full 82 game season, was on pace for 42 and 43 points for the season. That is not worth top 6 $. And I acknowledge his shooting % was super snake bit and low in 2018-2019(with the PO run likely making up for some of it as it was really high). I do not see him aging well offensively. Defensively, he should be OK. But I don't want to take that risk. Also think it's not right to compare him to Steen given that Steen could play C (he started playing more W), while Schwartz doesn't.
I don't think he tried replacing Petro outright with Faulk. I think he traded for Faulk to improve the roster as it was currently constructed. What I don't get is the timing of his contract extension, as well as Schenn's and Scandella's. Petro should've been priority #1 to keep, but I don't think Armstrong immediately traded for Faulk believing Petro was a goner.
Remember, Faulk didn't play RD when he was brought in. He was brought in as a LD to be an upgrade over Edmundson and was paired with Petro. He moved over to RD after Petro left. You could argue that that doesn't make sense since Faulk is better on RD(which I don't disagree with), but that's how he was used initially. Additionally, Bouwmeester and Gunnar were older and both have since retired. And if going with the argument that Faulk was brought in as a longterm upgrade for LD and attrition would let Dunn move up in the lineup as a regular, I could see where Armstrong was going.
I’m sorry but this taking point always drives me nuts.
Even if you believe every move is independent in a lot of situations (Which is a silly mindset to have as a GM: acquiring pure value doesn’t win you a cup, the right fits do), there is no way to argue they are independent here.
He trades for a Right Hand Defensemen, and immediately signs him to a 6 x 6.5 contract. That locks us into 12 million dollars a year on just the right side going into the next free agency. Which just so happens to be the year you franchise defensemen, also a RHD, is entering free agency. The move at the time was viewed as a warning sign Petro would be gone next year, and it concerned us. The fact that we lost him just continues the point. But we still have people sayin my it’s not Army’s fault, due to a slew of reasons. My counter to that is no matter how you look at the move, it still looks awful for Armstrong imo.
Option A: Armstrong made the Faulk trade without actually thinking of the Petro angle at all. It was purely a win now move done in an attempt to go back to back.
My Response: In that case he cut off his nose to spite his face. If he chose that year to push all in on, why do it with Faulk and no try to shore up the 2nd LHD spot? While a minor upgrade to the 3rd Pair RHD spot would have been nice, it wasn’t a gigantic need either. Also, any GM making that type of move without thinking about the big picture is a giant problem for his team.
Option B: The Faulk trade was an insurance policy to make sure if Petro did walk, we were covered. And he did! Isn’t Army smart!
My response: Does the phrase “Self-Fulfilling Prophecy” mean anything to you? Because that’s what this created. Not only if I was in Petro’s position would I take this as a sign that they might be ready to let me walk, it also backed us up into a corner: We can’t have 22 million locked up just on our Right Hand Side can we? This move maybe, MAYBE works if Petro is a restricted free agent, and your lowering his price tag, but not when he’s Unrestricted. It’s just gonna lead to him walking and is wondering how the hell we are gonna push forward without a full rebuild.
Option C: Obviously Army’s plan was to play Faulk on the Left Side, like they did with Carolina. We are basically getting Bouws long term replacement, not Petros
My response: This argument almost makes sense other then A: Faulk never looked good playing on his off side for us and B: When Bouw went down we immediately panicked and traded for and extended Scandella.
Option D: Army had came to the conclusion we wouldn’t miss Petro much, and made the move knowing he would most likely not be here after the next year
My response: Then he’s flat dumb, and believes he is way smarter then he actually is. No other thoughts, just simple.
Option E: Army was totally against giving Petro that No Movement Clause and accepted that he needed to be prepped for when Petro wouldn’t bend on it
My response: We will never be able to retain an elite player without No Movement Clauses in today’s game. Full stop. Our only way to contend is to rebuild completely and just hope we draft great and win before they hit UFA.
So yeah. Don’t buy it.
You won't see me defending the timing of the Faulk extension. It didn't make sense when it happened given Petro's situation. Same with Scandella's extension(I like him, but he was extended midseason after playing a handful of games). And the reason why I'll continue saying Faulk's move had little to no impact on Petro is look at how Armstrong handled the offseason. Both Allen and Steen contracts would've been larger hurdles to deal with-regardless of Faulk's extension-for keeping Petro. Allen was traded and I think Steen would've been LTIR'd regardless, leaving Allen's contract as really the only major obstacle. If the intention was to let Petro leave, I don't think Allen would've been traded.
Re: NMC-Armstrong is a shrewd GM. He has a price and value for every player that he feels comfortable with and is not afraid of making tough decisions that have large emotional connections. He's shown that with trading EJ and Backes.
You also have to think about what Armstrong's doing from a business perspective as well. They didn't use any of the amnesty buyouts nor have they ever bought out a player under Armstrong. Even though I don't think ownership has any financial problems with the Taylors backing the team, the team in a given season will be lucky to break-even without a PO appearance. If a contract became a complete albatross and immovable because of a NMC, that might have a larger impact on a team like the Blues vs a team like the Rangers. The team has a bunch of NTCs(which is a different discussion), but I think the whole no NMC is to protect the organization from contracts going bad on top of Armstrong saving some face with his bosses as he has a fiduciary responsibility.
I think it's also clear Vegas valued Petro more $ wise than Armstrong did, rightfully or wrongfully. I don't think Petro leaves if the Blues match $ with Vegas. Petro got more security with the NMC that he wanted and $ that the Blues did not feel comfortable with. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is. I appreciate Petro's time in St. Louis, but he made a business decision. So did the Blues. And life goes on.
