Jaden Schwartz’s next contact

[Stealth JD]

Please name one instance aside from the dead horse involving Petro where that’s been the case.

Letting Backes leave was the right move. As was Brouwer. Those are the only other “core” players I can think of that Armstrong let leave without getting anything in return, which includes Shattenkirk and Armstrong absolutely nuking his value.

If your argument is Armstrong is stubborn and doesn’t budge and it costs the team long term, fine. I get it. But to act as if 1 specific move is his long term record in St. Louis is short sighted.

Why would there need to be any other instance of a key player leaving besides Petro in order to use the phrase "again"? Besides, I'd expect worse players to be moved to keep a top-line player...but if Schwartz is squeezed on finances because the money went to Faulk, Binnington & Krug...well...that would seem fitting, all things considered.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Why would there need to be any other instance of a key player leaving besides Petro in order to use the phrase "again"? Besides, I'd expect worse players to be moved to keep a top-line player...but if Schwartz is squeezed on finances because the money went to Faulk, Binnington & Krug...well...that would seem fitting, all things considered.

Because there’s been no other instance where Armstrong has let a top player leave for the market when they were still a high performing player.

Petro should still be a Blue, however, he came up for FA during a pandemic that made the cap flat.

And Petro didn’t leave due to other contracts-Allen was moved to free up space. He left because he wanted something Armstrong was unwilling to give

 

[GoldenSeal]

5.5x5 is my absolute top end. Covid has changed cap landscape since Schenn signed.

I think this is what he’ll be signed at and for.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Because there’s been no other instance where Armstrong has let a top player leave for the market when they were still a high performing player.

Petro should still be a Blue, however, he came up for FA during a pandemic that made the cap flat.

And Petro didn’t leave due to other contracts-Allen was moved to free up space. He left because he wanted something Armstrong was unwilling to give

^Bait

 

[Brian39]

I don't believe Schwartz will be a Blue next season (although I'd love to be wrong).

If I were him, I wouldn't sign for a cent less than $45.5M (and it would probably take more than that if I'm honest). That's what we gave Krug after the realities of COVID and a flat cap were 100% known. Structure it how you want in terms of years, but if I were Schwartz I am absolutely not signing for the Blues at a number that indicates I'm less valuable to the franchise than Torey Krug was before he played a minute in a Blue Note. That would be my absolute floor to sign here and if it wasn't met then I would be happy to take my resume to UFA.

From the team perspective, I don't know how you give Schwartz that kind of money with $25.5M tied up in Schenn, Faulk, Krug, and Binner for the next 6+ years, another $15M tied up in Tarasenko/ROR for 2 years, a flat cap and Parayko due a sizeable raise next summer. Thomas hasn't earned the raise we were all expecting/hoping him to earn, but he and Kyrou will both get raises of some notice. Sanford and Barbie are RFAs with arbitration rights, so they will likely see a bump from their $1.5M. I don't see how you make it work if you give Schwartz a near-market-value deal unless you think this group is fully good enough and you don't want to make any changes/acquisitions to the current roster.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don't believe Schwartz will be a Blue next season (although I'd love to be wrong).

If I were him, I wouldn't sign for a cent less than $45.5M (and it would probably take more than that if I'm honest). That's what we gave Krug after the realities of COVID and a flat cap were 100% known. Structure it how you want in terms of years, but if I were Schwartz I am absolutely not signing for the Blues at a number that indicates I'm less valuable to the franchise than Torey Krug was before he played a minute in a Blue Note. That would be my absolute floor to sign here and if it wasn't met then I would be happy to take my resume to UFA.

From the team perspective, I don't know how you give Schwartz that kind of money with $25.5M tied up in Schenn, Faulk, Krug, and Binner for the next 6+ years, another $15M tied up in Tarasenko/ROR for 2 years, a flat cap and Parayko due a sizeable raise next summer. Thomas hasn't earned the raise we were all expecting/hoping him to earn, but he and Kyrou will both get raises of some notice. Sanford and Barbie are RFAs with arbitration rights, so they will likely see a bump from their $1.5M. I don't see how you make it work if you give Schwartz a near-market-value deal unless you think this group is fully good enough and you don't want to make any changes/acquisitions to the current roster.

Absolutely spot-on. Throw in that Faulk got the same money as Krug sight unseen, no contributions to the team either and that Schenn got the same money as Faulk just 2 weeks later for being here 2 years, while Schwartz has been here his entire career and got squeezed on his first contract out of entry-level and didn't get signed until midway through training camp.

Let's also not forget Jake Allen (yes, his name keeps coming up in this stuff) got an extension on his contract in 2016 despite still never having been the #1 goalie here for a season; Schwartz got a new contract 2 weeks later despite a 63-point season in '14-15 and 4-10-14 in the '16 playoffs. Not "extension after showing 25-31-56 was a fluke thing," had to play out the contract and then wait for a new deal while someone else got forked 4 years on top of the year he already had for being the backup handed the #1 spot.

I don't know if there's a lingering resentment there, but it's not a stretch to think there might be. To the extent there is, it gives Schwartz that much more reason to dig in for what Faulk, Krug and Schenn got or walk to the open market where someone else is likely going to give it to him - and at that point, we'll replace him with ... no one in the system. No one in free agency. The trade route and give up more assets we can't afford to lose in a quest to stay in win-now mode at the expense of the future?

 

[GoldenSeal]

Absolutely spot-on. Throw in that Faulk got the same money as Krug sight unseen, no contributions to the team either and that Schenn got the same money as Faulk just 2 weeks later for being here 2 years, while Schwartz has been here his entire career and got squeezed on his first contract out of entry-level and didn't get signed until midway through training camp.

Let's also not forget Jake Allen (yes, his name keeps coming up in this stuff) got an extension on his contract in 2016 despite still never having been the #1 goalie here for a season; Schwartz got a new contract 2 weeks later despite a 63-point season in '14-15 and 4-10-14 in the '16 playoffs. Not "extension after showing 25-31-56 was a fluke thing," had to play out the contract and then wait for a new deal while someone else got forked 4 years on top of the year he already had for being the backup handed the #1 spot.

I don't know if there's a lingering resentment there, but it's not a stretch to think there might be. To the extent there is, it gives Schwartz that much more reason to dig in for what Faulk, Krug and Schenn got or walk to the open market where someone else is likely going to give it to him - and at that point, we'll replace him with ... no one in the system. No one in free agency. The trade route and give up more assets we can't afford to lose in a quest to stay in win-now mode at the expense of the future?

Not speaking on your post but in general that this line of discussion is a sort of rabbit hole from which we end up with Army being the bad guy, not because of Pie necessarily, but because how he approached the situation, by overreacting in terms of contract money and term for players who don't warrant it, which shows some form of bias or favoritism. Army gives Jake Allen a ridiculous contract pretty much sight unseen and does the same for players in a COVID environment where they wouldn't have gotten that kind of money, but Army signed it to them with term so he could get them quickly.

Army has been pretty consistent with how he's operated, which tells me that 2019 was a fluke that even he didn't see coming. Picking up ROR for peanuts was a great move even if ROR just had a good year. Signing Binny to his contract I really don't care about because the guy got us a Cup but to be honest it's very much a Jake Allen contract except Binny proved it for a year. The comments by other posters comparing Binny to Hammond might be closer than you'd think.

But no matter what, and here's where the rabbit hole comes right in: Army's tenure will come down to how he handled Pietrangelo. Not because he didn't sign him but what he did next.

He in effect did something similar that DW did with the Sharks and they're in a spot where they won't be able to make the playoffs and can't rebuild due to the salary and term a handful of players has. Now we're not as bad as the Sharks, but the narrative I present here still rings true.

I'm curious to see what Army does next. I don't think the team is going down in flames by any stretch, but we're definitely not competing as we are.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Please name one instance aside from the dead horse involving Petro where that’s been the case.

Letting Backes leave was the right move. As was Brouwer. Those are the only other “core” players I can think of that Armstrong let leave without getting anything in return, which includes Shattenkirk and Armstrong absolutely nuking his value.

If your argument is Armstrong is stubborn and doesn’t budge and it costs the team long term, fine. I get it. But to act as if 1 specific move is his long term record in St. Louis is short sighted.

What? Yeah you should look into that again, Shattenkirk tanked his own value because he wouldn't sign an extension with Edmonton or Tampa (we could have gotten Hall or Drouin respectively) Armstrong got What he could because Shattenkirk wanted to go to New York during that offseason and everyone knew it, and then it got even funnier when Shattenkirk got exposed playing top 2 minutes and NYR bought him out and he went to TB anyways.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don't believe Schwartz will be a Blue next season (although I'd love to be wrong).

If I were him, I wouldn't sign for a cent less than $45.5M (and it would probably take more than that if I'm honest). That's what we gave Krug after the realities of COVID and a flat cap were 100% known. Structure it how you want in terms of years, but if I were Schwartz I am absolutely not signing for the Blues at a number that indicates I'm less valuable to the franchise than Torey Krug was before he played a minute in a Blue Note. That would be my absolute floor to sign here and if it wasn't met then I would be happy to take my resume to UFA.

From the team perspective, I don't know how you give Schwartz that kind of money with $25.5M tied up in Schenn, Faulk, Krug, and Binner for the next 6+ years, another $15M tied up in Tarasenko/ROR for 2 years, a flat cap and Parayko due a sizeable raise next summer. Thomas hasn't earned the raise we were all expecting/hoping him to earn, but he and Kyrou will both get raises of some notice. Sanford and Barbie are RFAs with arbitration rights, so they will likely see a bump from their $1.5M. I don't see how you make it work if you give Schwartz a near-market-value deal unless you think this group is fully good enough and you don't want to make any changes/acquisitions to the current roster.

I think they might look to move Tarasenko (and his salary). It’s a very tricky situation, but that might be a way to free some salary for Schwartz’s contract.

 

[stl76]

Why would we be comparing Krug and Schenn to Schwartz in contract negotiations? You don't look at d-men or C's on your team to determine market value for a winger.

If we want to establish a value for Schwartz the most logical way to go about it would be to analyze what comparable assets recently signed for on the open market then estimate adjustments for differences in individual factors (ex. age, production, cap at time of signing, etc.).

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Why would we be comparing Krug and Schenn to Schwartz in contract negotiations? You don't look at d-men or C's on your team to determine market value for a winger.

If we want to establish a value for Schwartz the most logical way to go about it would be to analyze what comparable assets recently signed for on the open market then estimate adjustments for differences in individual factors (ex. age, production, cap at time of signing, etc.).

You compare them because

• both of those guys got sight-unseen contracts without any clue what they would provide wearing the Bluenote; it was well, we hope what they've done elsewhere they'll do here. Schwartz has about 8 years of performance wearing the Bluenote so you know what he contributes.
• Faulk was a year from UFA. Krug was UFA. Schwartz will be UFA.
• Armstrong thought, rightly or wrongly, he could replace our #1 defenseman with someone else, other guys would step up and improve, and we'd just roll on. If Schwartz doesn't come back, it's the same bet - except, the FA market at forward is as bad if not worse this year for what we can realistically get.
• If being a FA or a guy who's only been here a year or two gets you handed a big paycheck, shouldn't having been here your entire career and contributed throughout it be worth at least that much? If not, why not?

If you want to do comparisons on the open market, ... well, go find guys who were 29 and even off "bad years" had a history of 50-60 point (or slightly more) seasons, who'd been a key contributor to a Cup-winning team. It's going to be a really short list, and those guys got paid by someone. Even in a flat cap world, if you can swap some 35-year old making $7 million and clearly on the decline for a 29-year old, 55-point guy with a ring who has at least a few more good years left and get him at $6.5 million, it's a no-brainer.

Not speaking on your post but in general that this line of discussion is a sort of rabbit hole from which we end up with Army being the bad guy, not because of Pie necessarily, but because how he approached the situation, by overreacting in terms of contract money and term for players who don't warrant it, which shows some form of bias or favoritism. Army gives Jake Allen a ridiculous contract pretty much sight unseen and does the same for players in a COVID environment where they wouldn't have gotten that kind of money, but Army signed it to them with term so he could get them quickly.

My comment has nothing to do with painting Armstrong as "the bad guy." [Trust me, he's done that enough himself. It'll probably become glaringly evident over the next couple of years to some still firmly in his corner, too.] It has to do with decisions having ramifications. Paying Allen without proof he could do what was expected forced Armstrong to have to pay Binnington for 30 regular season games and 26 playoff games when Binnington did perform, beyond everyone's wildest expectations. Faulk's contract + Schenn's contract + Scandella's contract, ... well, we've had this discussion in 727 threads on Pietrangelo, I'll leave it in those. Faulk and Krug at $6.5M per has already set the bar for Parayko if he's 100% healthy in a year; anyone thinking he wouldn't get more than that even with a flat cap is fooling themselves. There will be teams ready to throw $7.5M or more at him. Might we have gotten Parayko more cheaply otherwise? Don't know, but I do know once you set a figure for a pair of guys who'd be 2nd-liners on most good teams, you've signaled what your #2 / expected #1 is worth.

You can disagree with that, say it's missing something, make a different argument. I'm just looking at the cold hard facts + Schwartz's treatment by Armstrong in contract talks relative to what he's done with other guys. If they haven't talked contract, if there's not something at least unofficial in place, ... well, Schwartz got utterly dragged on his 1st contract post-ELC, he watched a teammate get showered with contract love with a year remaining on his deal without proving much more than "he's a great backup" and he's watched 3 other guys get brought into the organization and get showered with contract love while one of the guys he played with for ~7 years left for elsewhere because a contract didn't get done. If you want to blame Newport for all of that and say it's going to be different this time, Newport isn't involved, ... OK, fine. It better be, because if they don't have a deal in place and talks get even slightly contentious, it's not that much of a stretch to think Schwartz says f*** this, I'm tired of getting dicked around, I'm going to go find someone who really appreciates me.

 

[MissouriMook]

I think they might look to move Tarasenko (and his salary). It’s a very tricky situation, but that might be a way to free some salary for Schwartz’s contract.

I wonder if there would be mutual interest between the Rangers and Tarasenko. They might see him as a missing piece in their growth playing alongside Panarin and he might enjoy the opportunity to play in the NHL with his buddy. They will certainly have the cap space.

If the interest were there, I would be intrigued by a return centered around either Chytil or Buchnevich. I expect that Kakko, Kravtsov and Lafreniere are untouchable.

 

[Louie the Blue]

What? Yeah you should look into that again, Shattenkirk tanked his own value because he wouldn't sign an extension with Edmonton or Tampa (we could have gotten Hall or Drouin respectively) Armstrong got What he could because Shattenkirk wanted to go to New York during that offseason and everyone knew it, and then it got even funnier when Shattenkirk got exposed playing top 2 minutes and NYR bought him out and he went to TB anyways.

Armstrong was determined to trade Shattenkirk one way or another before the season started. He didn’t, and instead of actually working on an extension or attempt to keep him the rest of the season, he openly nuked his value before the deadline. He did the same exact thing with Oshie where he dug himself into a hole.

 

[LGB]

Re-sign Schwartz. If we were going to let him walk he should have been gone at the deadline.

 

[Brian39]

Why would we be comparing Krug and Schenn to Schwartz in contract negotiations? You don't look at d-men or C's on your team to determine market value for a winger.

If we want to establish a value for Schwartz the most logical way to go about it would be to analyze what comparable assets recently signed for on the open market then estimate adjustments for differences in individual factors (ex. age, production, cap at time of signing, etc.).

OK, let's look at some comparable UFA wingers. All stats taken for their career up to the time they got their UFA deal.

Schwartz has 378 points in 548 regular season games (.69 points per game). Extremely good possession numbers and 54 points in 84 playoff games.

JVR: 393 points in 609 games played before hitting UFA (which is .65 points per game). Decent possession stats (but inconsistent) and 29 points in 59 playoff games. He got $7M per year for 5 years

Skinner: 442 points in 661 games (.67 points per game), but with a lean more towards goals (244 to Schwartz's 150). Decent possession numbers and no career playoff appearances. $9M per year for 8 years and a full NMC for the duration.

Anders Lee: 258 points in 425 games (.61 points per game). Comparable possession numbers and 16 points in 35 playoff games. $7M per year for 7 years, a full NTC for the firt 5 of those years and a 15 team no-trade list for the last 2.

Evander Kane: 354 points in 574 games (.62 points per game and 186 goals to Schwartz's 150). Okay but inconsistent possession numbers and 13 points in 29 playoff games. $7M per year for 7 years with a very strong modified NTC for all 7 years (3 team list of teams he can be traded to).

Chris Kreider: 316 points in 523 games (.60 points per game). Good possession numbers and 39 points in 80 playoff games. $6.5M per year for 7 years with a NMC all 7 years (but a modified NTC with a 15 team no-trade list for the last 3).

Zuccarello: 355 points in 511 games (.69 points per game). good but inconsistent possession numbers and 42 points in 73 playoff games. $6M per year for 5 years an NMC for all 5 years (but a modified NTC with a 10 team no trade list for the last 2). Worth noting that Zucc was almost 32 when he signed this deal while Schwartz will have just turned 29.

Schwartz is the only person on that list with a Cup ring. Contracts aside, I think there is a decent argument for taking Schwartz over most (if not all) of this list. So there is your market value. Now, if you are asking him to take a hometown discount, you better have a very good answer to why he should have to take one when the Blues felt that Krug and Faulk were each worth more money.

 

[Celtic Note]

OK, let's look at some comparable UFA wingers. All stats taken for their career up to the time they got their UFA deal.

Schwartz has 378 points in 548 regular season games (.69 points per game). Extremely good possession numbers and 54 points in 84 playoff games.

JVR: 393 points in 609 games played before hitting UFA (which is .65 points per game). Decent possession stats (but inconsistent) and 29 points in 59 playoff games. He got $7M per year for 5 years

Skinner: 442 points in 661 games (.67 points per game), but with a lean more towards goals (244 to Schwartz's 150). Decent possession numbers and no career playoff appearances. $9M per year for 8 years and a full NMC for the duration.

Anders Lee: 258 points in 425 games (.61 points per game). Comparable possession numbers and 16 points in 35 playoff games. $7M per year for 7 years, a full NTC for the firt 5 of those years and a 15 team no-trade list for the last 2.

Evander Kane: 354 points in 574 games (.62 points per game and 186 goals to Schwartz's 150). Okay but inconsistent possession numbers and 13 points in 29 playoff games. $7M per year for 7 years with a very strong modified NTC for all 7 years (3 team list of teams he can be traded to).

Chris Kreider: 316 points in 523 games (.60 points per game). Good possession numbers and 39 points in 80 playoff games. $6.5M per year for 7 years with a NMC all 7 years (but a modified NTC with a 15 team no-trade list for the last 3).

Zuccarello: 355 points in 511 games (.69 points per game). good but inconsistent possession numbers and 42 points in 73 playoff games. $6M per year for 5 years an NMC for all 5 years (but a modified NTC with a 10 team no trade list for the last 2). Worth noting that Zucc was almost 32 when he signed this deal while Schwartz will have just turned 29.

Schwartz is the only person on that list with a Cup ring. Contracts aside, I think there is a decent argument for taking Schwartz over most (if not all) of this list. So there is your market value. Now, if you are asking him to take a hometown discount, you better have a very good answer to why he should have to take one when the Blues felt that Krug and Faulk were each worth more money.

I would gladly take Schwartz over most or all of that list.

 

[stl76]

You compare them because

• both of those guys got sight-unseen contracts without any clue what they would provide wearing the Bluenote; it was well, we hope what they've done elsewhere they'll do here. Schwartz has about 8 years of performance wearing the Bluenote so you know what he contributes.
• Faulk was a year from UFA. Krug was UFA. Schwartz will be UFA.
• Armstrong thought, rightly or wrongly, he could replace our #1 defenseman with someone else, other guys would step up and improve, and we'd just roll on. If Schwartz doesn't come back, it's the same bet - except, the FA market at forward is as bad if not worse this year for what we can realistically get.
• If being a FA or a guy who's only been here a year or two gets you handed a big paycheck, shouldn't having been here your entire career and contributed throughout it be worth at least that much? If not, why not?

If you want to do comparisons on the open market, ... well, go find guys who were 29 and even off "bad years" had a history of 50-60 point (or slightly more) seasons, who'd been a key contributor to a Cup-winning team. It's going to be a really short list, and those guys got paid by someone. Even in a flat cap world, if you can swap some 35-year old making $7 million and clearly on the decline for a 29-year old, 55-point guy with a ring who has at least a few more good years left and get him at $6.5 million, it's a no-brainer.

I get that you and other folks may find the comparison of Faulk/Krug to Schwartz interesting for the purposes of discussion. Personally, I don't it interesting or particularly relevant to determining Schwartz's value. It's just apples and oranges. I can't see that sort of comparison being brought up in actual contract negotiations, but I get why fans might find it relevant.

OK, let's look at some comparable UFA wingers. All stats taken for their career up to the time they got their UFA deal.

Schwartz has 378 points in 548 regular season games (.69 points per game). Extremely good possession numbers and 54 points in 84 playoff games.

JVR: 393 points in 609 games played before hitting UFA (which is .65 points per game). Decent possession stats (but inconsistent) and 29 points in 59 playoff games. He got $7M per year for 5 years

Skinner: 442 points in 661 games (.67 points per game), but with a lean more towards goals (244 to Schwartz's 150). Decent possession numbers and no career playoff appearances. $9M per year for 8 years and a full NMC for the duration.

Anders Lee: 258 points in 425 games (.61 points per game). Comparable possession numbers and 16 points in 35 playoff games. $7M per year for 7 years, a full NTC for the firt 5 of those years and a 15 team no-trade list for the last 2.

Evander Kane: 354 points in 574 games (.62 points per game and 186 goals to Schwartz's 150). Okay but inconsistent possession numbers and 13 points in 29 playoff games. $7M per year for 7 years with a very strong modified NTC for all 7 years (3 team list of teams he can be traded to).

Chris Kreider: 316 points in 523 games (.60 points per game). Good possession numbers and 39 points in 80 playoff games. $6.5M per year for 7 years with a NMC all 7 years (but a modified NTC with a 15 team no-trade list for the last 3).

Zuccarello: 355 points in 511 games (.69 points per game). good but inconsistent possession numbers and 42 points in 73 playoff games. $6M per year for 5 years an NMC for all 5 years (but a modified NTC with a 10 team no trade list for the last 2). Worth noting that Zucc was almost 32 when he signed this deal while Schwartz will have just turned 29.

Schwartz is the only person on that list with a Cup ring. Contracts aside, I think there is a decent argument for taking Schwartz over most (if not all) of this list. So there is your market value. Now, if you are asking him to take a hometown discount, you better have a very good answer to why he should have to take one when the Blues felt that Krug and Faulk were each worth more money.

Interesting, appreciate your work getting all this info together.

I think we can exclude Skinner for this discussion, that contract is a complete shit show of an outlier lol. Judging from the other comparable assets here and the current flat cap market, I would put Schwartz somewhere around $6.5 for 6 years. Maybe a 7th year and slightly lower AAV (something like $5.75 x 7). Either way there will probably be a full NTC for the first part of the contract and a lesser NTC the final couple years. That said, I could see a $6 x 8 contract on the upper end of realistic...not what I'd like to see and above my personal valuation, but wouldn't shock me.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I get that you and other folks may find the comparison of Faulk/Krug to Schwartz interesting for the purposes of discussion. Personally, I don't it interesting or particularly relevant to determining Schwartz's value. It's just apples and oranges. I can't see that sort of comparison being brought up in actual contract negotiations, but I get why fans might find it relevant.

As @Brian39 noted though, it is relevant. Yes, it will get brought up in contract negotiations. Armstrong, like you, will probably try to dismiss it. It won't matter from Schwartz's standpoint and his agent's standpoint. If he's got to take less than two guys who got forked over $6.5 million sight unseen, zero contributions to the franchise, there better be a really damn good reason why that also keeps Schwartz from heading to the open market to gauge who else is interested in him and what his real worth might be..

 

[simon IC]

I get that you and other folks may find the comparison of Faulk/Krug to Schwartz interesting for the purposes of discussion. Personally, I don't it interesting or particularly relevant to determining Schwartz's value. It's just apples and oranges. I can't see that sort of comparison being brought up in actual contract negotiations, but I get why fans might find it relevant.


Interesting, appreciate your work getting all this info together.

I think we can exclude Skinner for this discussion, that contract is a complete shit show of an outlier lol. Judging from the other comparable assets here and the current flat cap market, I would put Schwartz somewhere around $6.5 for 6 years. Maybe a 7th year and slightly lower AAV (something like $5.75 x 7). Either way there will probably be a full NTC for the first part of the contract and a lesser NTC the final couple years. That said, I could see a $6 x 8 contract on the upper end of realistic...not what I'd like to see and above my personal valuation, but wouldn't shock me.

I agree, he will likely get 6x8. I don't think it is a good thing, but I can see it happening.

 

[stl76]

As @Brian39 noted though, it is relevant. Yes, it will get brought up in contract negotiations. Armstrong, like you, will probably try to dismiss it. It won't matter from Schwartz's standpoint and his agent's standpoint. If he's got to take less than two guys who got forked over $6.5 million sight unseen, zero contributions to the franchise, there better be a really damn good reason why that also keeps Schwartz from heading to the open market to gauge who else is interested in him and what his real worth might be..

Setting aside the assumption we are making that Schwartz/his agent will care about and will bring up the Faulk & Krug contracts - ultimately it's the market that will determine Schwartz's contract. I get that contracts for teammates don't exist in a vacuum (ex. teams may have an internal salary structure), but the defenseman market doesn't determine the price of a winger. If Schwartz heads to the open market to gauge interest, nobody there will give a crap what the Blues paid their defensemen.

 

[GoldenSeal]

After reading this thread, I really think Schwartz might walk.

 

[Reality Czech]

Not speaking on your post but in general that this line of discussion is a sort of rabbit hole from which we end up with Army being the bad guy, not because of Pie necessarily, but because how he approached the situation, by overreacting in terms of contract money and term for players who don't warrant it, which shows some form of bias or favoritism. Army gives Jake Allen a ridiculous contract pretty much sight unseen and does the same for players in a COVID environment where they wouldn't have gotten that kind of money, but Army signed it to them with term so he could get them quickly.

Army has been pretty consistent with how he's operated, which tells me that 2019 was a fluke that even he didn't see coming. Picking up ROR for peanuts was a great move even if ROR just had a good year. Signing Binny to his contract I really don't care about because the guy got us a Cup but to be honest it's very much a Jake Allen contract except Binny proved it for a year. The comments by other posters comparing Binny to Hammond might be closer than you'd think.

But no matter what, and here's where the rabbit hole comes right in: Army's tenure will come down to how he handled Pietrangelo. Not because he didn't sign him but what he did next.

He in effect did something similar that DW did with the Sharks and they're in a spot where they won't be able to make the playoffs and can't rebuild due to the salary and term a handful of players has. Now we're not as bad as the Sharks, but the narrative I present here still rings true.

I'm curious to see what Army does next. I don't think the team is going down in flames by any stretch, but we're definitely not competing as we are.

There are several comments here that I couldn't disagree with more. Are we so jaded now that some consider 2019 a "fluke?" GMs cannot will their team to win the Cup, the players have to do that. All a GM can do is build a team that has a chance to win, and it's pretty obvious Army has done that for most of his tenure. If the Sharks had won a Cup when they were on top, I'm sure Sharks fans would be much more forgiving towards Wilson. So I don't think it's fair to compare the two at all.

Also, I completely disagree that his tenure will be defined by the Petro situation and aftermath. He'll be remembered as the GM who brought the Blues their first Cup, and nothing can take that away from him. Signing Krug or letting Petro walk will always pale in comparison to that achievement, even if the contract doesn't work out. I'll be ready to tell everyone "I told you so" when the Petro contract becomes an albatross in a few years.

People are mentioning the Allen, Faulk and Krug contracts in regards to Schwartz. I like Schwartz, but top 6 wingers are more replaceable than a potential starting goalie or top 4 defenseman. While the Allen signing wasn't great, it wasn't that bad either. If Allen had become a serviceable starter, it would have been a bargain (I say serviceable because you don't get an elite goalie for $4 million a year). As it stands now, he's a high-paid backup/1b goalie but you can't always predict what's going to happen in the future. If he had let Allen go, who would have replaced him? No one saw Binnington coming, so maybe we would have been forced to overpay in free agency or via trade. Who would be playing in our top 4 if we didn't have Krug or Faulk? Kind of important as well.

I think some GMs value when a player is willing to sign an extension in advance because it gives them cost certainty and helps them make other personnel decisions. If a player wants to push it past the UFA deadline, then there is always the chance the team will start seeking out other options.
The fact of the matter is, we won't be able to make definitive statements on most of these things for a few years until we see what happens.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

RC makes some good points. I'll try to summarize responses.

First off, everything looks different if history is different. Doug Wilson's reputation around the league and with Sharks fans is probably different if the Sharks win a Cup. They didn't, it's not. He very arguably should have been shit-canned after his antics before the 2014-15 season that saw the team miss the playoffs. For a guy who built a roster that would put up 7 100+ point seasons in 11 years to never get them to the Finals once in that span, including a 4-year run of 107, 108, 117 and 113 points that saw them go 4-4 in playoff series, 22-23 in actual games and get swept by a Blackhawks team in the WCF that went on to win the Cup (and 2 more after that) which was light years behind the Sharks when Wilson took over, ... at some point, that lies at the feet of the GM, and 5 trips to the WCF (1-4 in those visits) just doesn't cut it for a guy who regularly had a roster people thought could go to the Finals and who's now saddled it with big contracts that keep him from being able to make meaningful improvements. Throw on that he sold the future to try and win now and got neither, and the Sharks are going to be in that weird spot for a while where they've got a few talented guys but the rest under that is crap. But, they got EK65 for the next century at $12M per, so there's that.

Is '19 a fluke? I think it's certainly not repeatable soon given where we stand. I think (have thought since we were on that run that season) that it appears more of an accident than a set of well-timed, thoughtful moves. He assembled a roster that was supposed to contend for a Cup, but kept a guy at the helm that was clearly over his head and trusted a goalie who'd shown he wasn't capable of carrying the load to be the guy to backstop us to . That was terrible work on his part; no one around the league thought Mike Yeo could really coach this team deep into the postseason, and not many more thought Allen could really be the guy who'd step up his game to be able to give the Blues quality goaltending to get to 16 wins. If Binnington doesn't show up and do his magic, we don't sniff the Cup. We probably don't sniff the playoffs. That was much more luck than it was purposeful intent. It was also complete buy-in from the roster, courtesy Berube. Right now, we don't have that. We'll spend all offseason discussing why not.

Are top-6 wingers more replaceable? Sure ... if they're available. If you have the assets. If you have in-house replacements. You know what's not easily replaceable? #1 defensemen, especially top-15 in the league defensemen - and for whatever reason, we don't have one of those now. How would history be different if Allen hadn't been extended and he'd been better in that last year of his contract? Don't know, maybe one day we'll have time travel and be able to fork off a new timeline and find out. How would this season be different between that + Pietrangelo being kept? Don't know, same thing. I try to always stick to facts that exist.

Finally, the point about Armstrong's tenure will "be remembered as the GM who brought the Blues their first Cup, and nothing can take that away from him" is correct, and the same sentiment applies to Pietrangelo being the captain of that team no matter how many people want to claim he'll really be remembered for bailing out on us and chasing more money. But like people want to view Pietrangelo for leaving and even put their own spin on why and who's to blame, that legacy can still be tarnished by subsequent events. If Armstrong's actions take a Cup-winning team and turn it into a declining, middle-of-the-pack roster in the Western Conference or worse, he'll basically be Doug Wilson in San Jose except he ended up getting a Cup along the way, and people will spend years discussing whether it was Armstrong's evil genius or if it was a total fluke.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

After reading this thread, I really think Schwartz might walk.

I have no idea one way or another. I will say that if they have a deal in hand and are waiting for the expansion draft to pass and Schwartz is under $6M per, either someone really wants to stay here or Armstrong should get into the business of selling ice to people in the Arctic.

If they don't have a deal in hand, there's all kinds of reasons to think it's not going to be pretty.

 

[Stealth JD]

It can be argued that no other tam was hurt more by the Covid-shutdown than the Blues. Cruising at the top of the West at the time of the shutdown, the boys were healthy and playing as a cohesive unit. But when they returned in the fan-less bubble, the energy and chemistry was gone and the rest is history. Had the NHL season continued uninterrupted, it's not crazy to think that the Blues may have made a deeper playoff run, and even if they don't defend the Cup, a 3rd round appearance would have done wonders for the finances of the organization. Perhaps Stillman and Armstrong aren't so eager to let their Captain walk after another standout playoffs.

Instead, they're fighting for their playoff lives in a division that should be the easiest in which to make the post-season (I'm not convinced they displace MTL in the North), and are facing a division next year which includes Arizona, Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville & Winnipeg. Who's convinced that this club absolutely would not finish dead last in that division as soon as next season? (And before anyone points to Arizona or Chicago, let's be reminded that those teams wont lose anybody of note at the expansion draft, while the Blues could lose some significant depth in the ED in UFA)

I think the bigger threat than the Blues not wanting to pay Schwartz what he's worth is Schwartz himself looking at this roster and not wanting to be a part of a rebuild. He, like Pietrangelo, may want a change and this is his one last chance to decide the rest of his career. Why wouldn't he want to entertain offers from an up-and-coming team, or a big-market team, or ANY of the other 31 clubs? Seattle could be a cool experience after watching what Perron and the Knights experienced.

Now if Schwartz does indeed leave, the butterfly effect of the Covid pandemic makes a pretty compelling case for the Blues having been harmed more than any other club.