Ego vs Immortality Framed Forever

[Ted Hoffman]

LeBrun had good overview of situation that strongly implies Petro camp wanted north of 9. LeBrun: What’s a fair deal for Roman Josi and Alex Pietrangelo? Executives and agents share their thoughts

Progress. Finally.

Now: not going to ask you to show us all how that runs counter to the comment that Pietrangelo was reportedly willing to take less on total dollars if he got other things he wanted, among other things that the Pietrangelo is a piece of shit crowd want to claim. That's asking way too much, we're nowhere near ready for that. Let's keep this simple. just show us all where I ever said that [Pietrangelo asking for north of $9 million per] was totally reasonable and the Blues should have handed it over, no questions asked, no modifications to the request made.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Y’all are welcome to apologize now.

Apologize for what? You finding links saying Pietrangelo wanted $9 million or more? No one ever said that wasn't the case. What we (I) did say was that the two sides didn't talk for months and it was Armstrong's doing, and when they did talk they weren't close and Armstrong's vague remarks on what he was offering didn't necessarily mean he was giving everything Pietrangelo asked for. At least keep track of what's in dispute here.

You need to read back a couple pages and see an example of how contract negotiations don't work.

Spoiler

You don't start off with an initial offer of what you really want. You ask for more, knowing you're going to move down from there and you expect the other side to give a little.

Spoiler

And no, that doesn't mean you meet at the midway point between the two offers.

 

[BlueKnight]

Y’all are welcome to apologize now.

I'm not apologizing, I made my opinions based off what I read and heard from both sides.

 

[mike1320]

Y’all are welcome to apologize now.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Speaking of breath...there's seems to be a lot of hot air being blown in here recently.

 

[Blueston]

Apologize for what? You finding links saying Pietrangelo wanted $9 million or more? No one ever said that wasn't the case. What we (I) did say was that the two sides didn't talk for months and it was Armstrong's doing, and when they did talk they weren't close and Armstrong's vague remarks on what he was offering didn't necessarily mean he was giving everything Pietrangelo asked for. At least keep track of what's in dispute here.

You need to read back a couple pages and see an example of how contract negotiations don't work.

Spoiler

You don't start off with an initial offer of what you really want. You ask for more, knowing you're going to move down from there and you expect the other side to give a little.

Spoiler

And no, that doesn't mean you meet at the midway point between the two offers.

It’s real simple. Perri camp asked for more than 9. Army wanted to keep AAV below 8. He likely determined that gap could be too far to bridge so he acquired Faulk and then signed him and Schenn. He didn’t blow off his captain out of ego. He was hoping Petro would lower his ask due to affection fir city and teammates. Calculate LMF risk perhaps. Instead Petro left. It wasn’t ego or because of self imposed rules. Petro wanted more money than Army felt he could give. That is what happened. We know this. You are filling in blanks based on what Petro agent has been putting out to not make their client look greedy. Army has said he gave a lot on those other areas. But he was never gong to give Petro 9x8. Maybe he should have (doubtful) but that is what happened. You don’t have to like it but y’all keep b!tch!ng over alternative version of reality and it is getting really old.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Polishing my Cup ring while reading through this.

The team is different now and not doing well. I want to see what Army and Chief do now and at the TDL and what their plan is.

This team isn’t that far off and we still need help once Colt gets back. The Cup Run Team is long gone via retirement, being traded or walking off. Army operated quickly to fill holes with what he could -find-, which is not the same as getting us what we -need-. Now that we know the missing pieces and desperately need this team to find its own Gloria, lets see what they do.

Time to retool and chase another Cup, boys. I want We Went Blues back!

 

[EastonBlues22]

Last straw. If you make a post that isn't productively contributing to the topic or conversation moving forward, you will simply be banned from the thread.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It’s real simple. Perri camp asked for more than 9. Army wanted to keep AAV below 8. He likely determined that gap could be too far to bridge so he acquired Faulk and then signed him and Schenn.

Q: do you have links showing that Pietrangelo's "camp asked for more than 9" before Armstrong traded for Faulk? Because it's not in either of the two you gave, which leads me to believe you're merely speculating on how things went.

* The tweet from Strickland is dated September 19, 2020. That's almost a year after we traded for Faulk, and there's zero detail of when that $9.25M ask was made and even less proof that it was from a year prior.
* The comments from LeBrun are from October, 2019 - after Faulk was acquired - and makes no mention of a demand from Pietrangelo's side. It does reference "... the Preds came up to $8.5-million a year on a long-term contract but that the Josi camp is looking for north of $9-million AAV" and the article asks unnamed agents and team executives what they think Josi and Pietrangelo are worth along with LeBrun's thoughts, but nowhere in there is "hey, I've heard Pietrangelo's side asked for ______."

I'm just trying to understand how Pietrangelo is supposed to be the bad guy and we're all supposed to presume he was asking for a shitload of money and refused to negotiate from shortly after we won the Cup, when no one has any idea what he was asking for or if he even made a offer to the Blues before Armstrong traded for Faulk. It would be nice to see something that says "hey, in mid-September the two sides had talked and Pietrangelo's camp asked for _____" instead of everyone wildly speculating and using well, you know as the justification for some claim.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

So, "Petro's mouthpiece at the Athletic" who's notorious for not criticizing the current Blues GM on multiple items in order to maintain a relationship with him for access to information and future articles, THIS ONE TIME, went rogue and spun stories one-sided to paint Pietrangelo as a saint while demonizing Armstrong - even though nothing in the reporting JR did was remotely close to that. It's not even Schrödinger's Reporting. It's something 38-quantum dimensional which only you apparently understand.

Post a link to your claim and explain how that differs from anything I've stated. Even better, just point out one time where I ever said what Pietrangelo asked for was something totally reasonable and the Blues should have handed it over, no questions asked, no modifications to the request made.

JR admitted to me in private correspondence that he wasn't getting any information from Blues management. I had criticized his one-sided reporting in a comments section on the Athletic. He basically admitted that he was only getting responses from one side, and then asked if I thought he should not report on this major issue because of it. He was a little defensive. But frankly, I think his response pretty much underscored what I was criticizing in the first place.

I am very skeptical about this claim that no information had passed between the sides. Armstrong acted as if he knew the ask was more than he could do, from pretty early in the process. I think the end-result of the negotiation kind of jives with that impression. Maybe there is a semantic argument that they hadn't "sat down" or formally exchanged numbers, etc, but I think its far more likely that this is only technically true and not literally true. I think both sides had some idea where they were starting from, and Armstrong had concerns. He sure acted like he did. Since JR is the only source that's claiming they hadn't "sat down" and I know he was only getting commentary from one side of this negotiation, I read between the lines. Its totally consistent with his methods for Armstrong to not comment to the press/public about an ongoing negotiation. That fits the story for me. And its also totally reasonable for an agent/agency to use whatever leverage they have (including media contacts) to try to apply pressure to management. It would be weird if they didn't, in fact. So...expecting that to happen, I have to filter the media reporting through that distortion.

I fully acknowledge that it requires some guesswork. But I think you have put WAY too much stock into this report that they never "sat down" or whatever the wording was. I am dubious that this means no initial numbers were known. I feel like most of your argument revolves around whether this is literally true. If someone could prove (which I'm sure is impossible) that Armstrong and Newport exchanged some info far earlier than you think they did, what would that mean to you?

 

[Bernie Federko]

Well, my guess is this, and it's only a guess. I think it went sideways in July - August 2019. Newport came in around $10 million based on the Karlsson and Doughty deals at $11 million. See we're giving you a discount! Armstrong was probably thinking in the $8 million plus neighborhood and thought it was too big of a gap. He then goes out and trades for Faulk, which really was an over-reaction. When Josi signed his deal in early November for $9 x 8, I told myself that if a deal wasn't done by the holidays it would never be done. That was a clear market comp. I personally wish Armstrong would have been more patient. I would rather have Petro than 2 lesser defenseman. In fact I could argue that we would be better positioned if we had done nothing with those 2 and made better use of salary cap space elsewhere or used it for leverage. Worried about the back end of the Petro deal? What about the back half of Faulk and Krug. Ironic that Petro moved because he was worried about being moved.

Krikee.

 

[mike1320]

Ironic that Petro moved because he was worried about being moved.

This is, in fact, dripping in irony.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Well, my guess is this, and it's only a guess. I think it went sideways in July - August 2019. Newport came in around $10 million based on the Karlsson and Doughty deals at $11 million. See we're giving you a discount! Armstrong was probably thinking in the $8 million plus neighborhood and thought it was too big of a gap. He then goes out and trades for Faulk, which really was an over-reaction. When Josi signed his deal in early November for $9 x 8, I told myself that if a deal wasn't done by the holidays it would never be done. That was a clear market comp. I personally wish Armstrong would have been more patient. I would rather have Petro than 2 lesser defenseman. In fact I could argue that we would be better positioned if we had done nothing with those 2 and made better use of salary cap space elsewhere or used it for leverage. Worried about the back end of the Petro deal? What about the back half of Faulk and Krug. Ironic that Petro moved because he was worried about being moved.

Krikee.

I think Faulk was an opportunity. He was obtained for peanuts: a prospect the team had soured on and a defenseman who was likely to walk and wasn't in the plans anyway. So...you could argue that he got the right to re-sign Faulk without subtracting anything from the roster. My guess is that Armstrong saw Faulk as having positive trade value on the re-signed contract regardless of how things went with Pietro. He figured he could move him if necessary. Then, the season performance was not so hot and the contract looked less palatable. Today? I think he's movable on that contract if necessary. But now he's crucial to the Blues' future as a part of the current core.

If Faulk was an obstacle to re-signing Pietro, it was more driven by Pietro's sensibilities being offended than by actual cap ramifications and player movements. But if Pietro was truly "offended" by Faulk being signed, I think that tells you the temperature of the water already.

 

[Bernie Federko]

Yes, Faulk was an opportunity but also an opportunity cost. I just wish Armstrong had been more patient, he knew there was another guy in Josi that was a direct comparable. If you can't make a deal under those terms, my view is that he could have probably still obtained Faulk later if that was the way he wanted to go.

 

[Bernie Federko]

I will also add that it would not have been unreasonable for Newport to start at around $10 million in the summer of 2019. Then after Covid, Petro's deal ended up at $8.5 million. I see both sides losing with the way it ended up.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Yes, Faulk was an opportunity but also an opportunity cost. I just wish Armstrong had been more patient, he knew there was another guy in Josi that was a direct comparable. If you can't make a deal under those terms, my view is that he could have probably still obtained Faulk later if that was the way he wanted to go.

I think it was reasonable to conclude that Faulk was a valuable asset that could be dealt later. Although it arguably didn't turn out that way, I can see how having Faulk (Pietro and Parayko) on that side made the defense better for the Cup defense run. In hindsight, maybe there were other better routes. But I think Armstrong's play here was a reasonable one. RHD have been a pretty rare and valuable commodity in the past decade. Getting a guy in his prime under contract could have paid off even if all they did was end up flipping him later.

If they hadn't signed him, and he'd signed long term in some place like Arizona, who would the Blues have pursued in the hypothetical where Pietro STILL walks and now Armstrong is negotiating from a position of weakness...needing a top 4 RHD immediately? These hypotheticals cut both ways.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I fully acknowledge that it requires some guesswork. But I think you have put WAY too much stock into this report that they never "sat down" or whatever the wording was. I am dubious that this means no initial numbers were known. I feel like most of your argument revolves around whether this is literally true. If someone could prove (which I'm sure is impossible) that Armstrong and Newport exchanged some info far earlier than you think they did, what would that mean to you?

Actually, my position in this entire situation doesn't revolve around whether it was "literally true" that they hadn't talked until X point. What would it mean if they had talked prior to X? Ok, they'd talked. Point noted. My position relies much more on what actually happened, start-to-finish, and far less on what people think happened, suspect happened, believe happened with no other proof than I feel it in my spirit!

It's why I keep asking things like what were the starting offers? Did Armstrong really offer 5/35 and no bonus money to start? How flexible was Pietrangelo on total salary if he got / didn't get various things? What did Armstrong's alleged final 8/64 proposal really look like? How long did it take for him to finally get to 8/64? How involved were parties other than Pietrangelo and Armstrong in the negotiations? What did "some signing bonus money and a modified NMC" really mean? They're simple questions, but the answers are really critical to understand a lot of what happened and right now no one knows any of that, and I suspect some of those answers might change people's views on things.

Myself? I don't fault Pietrangelo for leaving. I don't fault Armstrong for letting Pietrangelo leave. I've been steadfastly consistent with that, especially as it regards Armstrong. That will be true if Pietrangelo wanted 8/88 and 77M in bonus money, or Armstrong started at 6/30 and no bonus money and not even a NTC. I'd just like to know what really happened and how it led to Pietrangelo walking out the door, and how that potentially impacts retaining and attracting guys down the road.

I'll also add on a comment you made, which I'm not quoting but everyone can easily find: should Pietrangelo have been "truly 'offended' by Faulk being signed?" I'll even add a follow-up: should Pietrangelo have been totally cool with watching Faulk and Schenn get 7 and 8-year deals respectively? Well, ... it depends. Did Pietrangelo really get told they couldn't talk long-term deal because of all the future uncertainty before Faulk and Schenn got their deals? I don't know if that was the case or not. It's been reported that he was told that, but until we get all the details no one can say for sure how things went down. We're missing info, and even what's been reported isn't sufficient to put all the pieces in place.

 

[BlueKnight]

After the cup win I'm sure Petro asked for $10M considering Karlsson's and Doughty's contracts and Army overreacts and trades and signs Faulk. When Josi signed his deal that was Petro's market value. Army was trying to use Faulk as leverage which is IMO the absolute worse way to handle a negotiation. I rather have kept Petro and Edmundson instead of having 1 average defenseman and 1 powerplay specialist at least with the former the Blues would've still been legit cup contenders instead of where they are now, A fringe playoff team.

Elliotte Friedman reported numerous times that the negotiations got downright personal. And then there was the rumored offer that Army wanted Petro to commit before even discussing anything else, Who in their right mind would accept such an offer? Every insider said they never seen such a thing before especially towards a top player like Pietrangelo.

In one of JR's chats on the Athletic a month or so after I asked him a question and his answer was Petro left because he was frustrated at the lack of negotiations between him and the Blues and was close to free agency that he wanted to see what was out there. And in a different chat JR answered my question saying even if they did appear together smiling and announcing a signing, there would've been bad blood between them, Can't remember exactly but something along those lines.

I've read through every article I could find from both sides and listened to every podcast and video and pieced together my opinions off of that, I've left out some details as they been discussed before. I wanted to add my opinions to a couple of things. After piecing together everything Army bungled the whole thing from the beginning. It should've never never never gotten to that point where things got personal and Petro leaving.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Maybe I’m totally out of touch here but didn’t we acquire Faulk to replace the hole that Jaybo left?

 

[simon IC]

Maybe I’m totally out of touch here but didn’t we acquire Faulk to replace the hole that Jaybo left?

No. Bouwmeester was a shutdown LD. Faulk is an offensive-minded RD. They could not be any more different. Faulk was acquired in Sept of 2019, when JBo was still an important part of the Blues defense. JBo suffered a cardiac arrest while playing on Feb. 11, 2020, ending his career. It was an unfortunate, and completely unforeseen event, and JBo would likely still be an important part of the Blues defense if it did not occur.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Maybe I’m totally out of touch here but didn’t we acquire Faulk to replace the hole that Jaybo left?

Scandella was brought in to help with the loss of JBo.

 

[Ranksu]

Maybe I’m totally out of touch here but didn’t we acquire Faulk to replace the hole that Jaybo left?

Faulk was acquire to fill the hole Pietro would leave.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Actually, my position in this entire situation doesn't revolve around whether it was "literally true" that they hadn't talked until X point. What would it mean if they had talked prior to X? Ok, they'd talked. Point noted. My position relies much more on what actually happened, start-to-finish, and far less on what people think happened, suspect happened, believe happened with no other proof than I feel it in my spirit!

It's why I keep asking things like what were the starting offers? Did Armstrong really offer 5/35 and no bonus money to start? How flexible was Pietrangelo on total salary if he got / didn't get various things? What did Armstrong's alleged final 8/64 proposal really look like? How long did it take for him to finally get to 8/64? How involved were parties other than Pietrangelo and Armstrong in the negotiations? What did "some signing bonus money and a modified NMC" really mean? They're simple questions, but the answers are really critical to understand a lot of what happened and right now no one knows any of that, and I suspect some of those answers might change people's views on things.

Myself? I don't fault Pietrangelo for leaving. I don't fault Armstrong for letting Pietrangelo leave. I've been steadfastly consistent with that, especially as it regards Armstrong. That will be true if Pietrangelo wanted 8/88 and 77M in bonus money, or Armstrong started at 6/30 and no bonus money and not even a NTC. I'd just like to know what really happened and how it led to Pietrangelo walking out the door, and how that potentially impacts retaining and attracting guys down the road.

I'll also add on a comment you made, which I'm not quoting but everyone can easily find: should Pietrangelo have been "truly 'offended' by Faulk being signed?" I'll even add a follow-up: should Pietrangelo have been totally cool with watching Faulk and Schenn get 7 and 8-year deals respectively? Well, ... it depends. Did Pietrangelo really get told they couldn't talk long-term deal because of all the future uncertainty before Faulk and Schenn got their deals? I don't know if that was the case or not. It's been reported that he was told that, but until we get all the details no one can say for sure how things went down. We're missing info, and even what's been reported isn't sufficient to put all the pieces in place.

Ted, you ask questions that we both know aren’t publicly available information. We are left to try to read between the lines, parse statements made after the fact, and interpret fallible reports from admittedly biased reporting. I really don’t understand making such adamant statements about the negotiation in the face of that uncertainty. You act like you’re privy to details that the rest of us ignore. We are all having a reasonable disagreement about what guessed truths we extrapolate from the know information. Don’t confound my position with the “Pietro is the devil” contingent.

It absolutely does make a difference if Pietro’s representation communicated an obstinate first ask that foreshadowed a disconnect from reasonable precedents. If so, acquiring Faulk looks pretty reasonable and prudent. I can’t understand you building an argument around the detail that Armstrong ‘refused to talk’ for opening numbers, and then pretending that detail is irrelevant to you. You’ve referenced that point many times. I question whether that is the whole story, reasonably so. I could be wrong to doubt it, but you can see how we each logically get to our conclusions from our starting assumptions. I reject the notion that your position doesn’t require just as much starting assumptions as mine. Please stop treating me like I can’t see the situation as well as you can. We both see it. We just don’t agree on our starting point where the information is incomplete.

 

[GoldenSeal]

No. Bouwmeester was a shutdown LD. Faulk is an offensive-minded RD. They could not be any more different. Faulk was acquired in Sept of 2019, when JBo was still an important part of the Blues defense. JBo suffered a cardiac arrest while playing on Feb. 11, 2020, ending his career. It was an unfortunate, and completely unforeseen event, and JBo would likely still be an important part of the Blues defense if it did not occur.

Thank you for the clarification

 

[GoldenSeal]

Scandella was brought in to help with the loss of JBo.

Gotcha, thank you!

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Ted, you ask questions that we both know aren’t publicly available information. We are left to try to read between the lines, parse statements made after the fact, and interpret fallible reports from admittedly biased reporting. I really don’t understand making such adamant statements about the negotiation in the face of that uncertainty. You act like you’re privy to details that the rest of us ignore. We are all having a reasonable disagreement about what guessed truths we extrapolate from the know information. Don’t confound my position with the “Pietro is the devil” contingent.

Stop here. I'm not accusing you of that statement. I don't recall you having said anything of the sort, either. I've quoted others who have used that statement in various forms, though. We can find others across the last ~5 months or so who've also done that. It's those people who also lack information about what really happened, who are also extrapolating, but are using those extrapolations as facts to leap to further conclusions that simply don't hold up.

If I've extrapolated on this situation [I try to avoid that in general], I've tried to be incredibly careful about it and couch those accordingly. I've also repeatedly stated, "I don't know what happened." All we have is the information that's been reported, and I've tried to make use of that to draw reasonably logical conclusions while still making it clear, "we don't know what happened." As I say all the time, I prefer not to leap to ungrounded assumptions. In the absence of details to the contrary, all we have is that which has been reported. Let's work with that to start. As more information comes in, we can [should] take it and adjust thoughts accordingly. [I'm still not throwing either side under the bus, but maybe it'll help clarify anyone else's views on why one side should go under the bus.] Right now, we have nothing new so we're all left to figure it out. Let's not knee-jerk assume a dozen things no one can prove and which are potentially refuted by available information, pretend all those assumptions are fact, and draw conclusions accordingly.

It absolutely does make a difference if Pietro’s representation communicated an obstinate first ask that foreshadowed a disconnect from reasonable precedents. If so, acquiring Faulk looks pretty reasonable and prudent.

Except, your comment contains the very prominent qualifier if. Maybe Petro's side did have a huge ask. Maybe they didn't have an ask at all. So what if they had a huge ask? I don't expect him to go in and say "here's what I'll take" as a starting point. Maybe Armstrong didn't have an offer at all. Maybe he went in with a lowball offer to start. Maybe he did a lowball offer in response. So what? I don't expect him to go in and say "here's what I really expect you to sign for." You don't know, I don't know, no one else here knows. It's all a guess beyond the few details have been put out, and I'm not going to assume JR or PL or anyone else is putting info out that's patently false.

The trade for Faulk is a distraction here. I've said repeatedly that was a non-accidental move; we just don't know why. Maybe Armstrong's long-standing issues with Newport caused him to say "you know what, I'm not dealing with this headache again, I'm covering myself in case they screw me" and he went and got Faulk as insurance. Maybe Armstrong really did get a massive ask and decided to get Faulk as insurance in case he couldn't get a deal done. We don't know. I largely don't care why we got Faulk, because that's not the topic at hand. The Faulk trade had nothing to do with how contract negotiations went between Pietrangelo's side and Armstrong pre-trade. It might have affected Pietrangelo's subsequent asks, it might have affected Armstrong's subsequent offers, it might have affected how each side viewed the other and how things went after. I don't know. Neither does anyone else. But to the extent it impacted things, that's kind of an important thing to know ... which, we don't.

I can’t understand you building an argument around the detail that Armstrong ‘refused to talk’ for opening numbers, and then pretending that detail is irrelevant to you. You’ve referenced that point many times. I question whether that is the whole story, reasonably so.

Actually, I've said it's been reported that Armstrong refused to talk in the aftermath of the Cup win. I've referenced that comment several times now. Did they really talk, though? Again, like a broken record: we don't know. Until someone shows or reports otherwise, do we assume the reports that they didn't talk are a lie?

And I've don't believe I've ever said it [whether they talked or not] was irrelevant to me. If I did, that was incorrect on my part. Of course it's relevant. It sets the tone for how the two sides were interacting with each other. If one says "let's talk" and the other says "nah, we're good" then wouldn't you want to know why the other side didn't want to talk? Might that impact how things went going forward? If they talked on July 1 and within 30 seconds things went to shit, wouldn't you want to know that and why it all went to shit, and what kind of impact that might have had on things going forward as they talked contract?

We don't know. We don't know any of that.

I could be wrong to doubt it, but you can see how we each logically get to our conclusions from our starting assumptions. I reject the notion that your position doesn’t require just as much starting assumptions as mine. Please stop treating me like I can’t see the situation as well as you can. We both see it. We just don’t agree on our starting point where the information is incomplete.

I apologize if you feel like I'm going after you on this. I'm not. I just think everyone should understand this entire situation is not as black-and-white as it "obviously" seems to some. I reject the narrative that Pietrangelo was a greedy money-grubbing selfish sonofabitch trying to extract every last dollar out of Stillman's vault while Armstrong was some kindly genteel mister trying to appease him at every turn, only to get double-crossed every time. I also reject the narrative that Armstrong was an arrogant prick who decided to try and squeeze Pietrangelo's balls figuring he'd never leave because of the connections to the area, so he put the screws to him on a contract and tried to cram him down into something cheap where if he'd just given what Pietrangelo wanted, all would have been fine. No one knows how talks went, no one knows what offers were exchanged, no one knows any of that stuff.

We may disagree on what information is present, but we should agree there's a hell of a lot that's not present. Timing matters. Details matter. We have few of either. I just think before anyone goes lobbing labels, we perhaps should have a lot more of the facts and a lot less of well I think, I bet, I'm sure thoughts that aren't backed up by anything more than feelings. That goes on both sides, even if my recent comments have been directed at the anti-Pietrangelo camp.

And for the 114th time, before anyone tries to go there: I don't care if Armstrong was more miserly than J. Paul Getty in negotiating and asked Pietrangelo to pick up all the tabs for food, pay the tips, and wouldn't validate parking for Pietrangelo's wife on her way out. I still wouldn't blame him for Pietrangelo leaving and go pure vitriol about it, just like I haven't done throughout this entire saga.