Speculation: Pietrangelo Close To Signing Extension (could be tonight)
- Thread starter RandallRitchey
- Start date
It’s how the NHL operates. Signing a couple of years of ufa when guys come off elc puts them in the 28-30 range when contract 2 is up, depending on when they make the nhl. Guess what, when they hit ufa, they want to get paid and will push for term.
Very little leverage for a 34/35 year old hitting the market. They pretty much make this their final contract. Thus they will push for maximum term taking them until they turn 36-38.
Debrincat93
Registered User
he'll be 30 in january. personally, i would be scared to commit 8 years to anyone at this point...but
something tells me i could see 8x8
something tells me i could see 8x8
Then they say that we bring up the leafs in every thread.....
Honeycutt
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2010
- 958
- 460
Can you look in your crystal ball and tell me what the cap number will be in 4 or 5 years after expanding to 32 teams and a new tv deal deal boost Hockey related revenue?
Thallis
No half measures
You think Faulk going into his ufa years signed knowing that he is likely to be exposed to an expansion draft?
It would be very odd if this wasn’t brought up.
Is there any specific ruling that he has no expansion protection? Or are people just inferring that because he doesn’t have a NMC on cap friendly?
There easily could be an expansion draft clause in the contract. There are so many things we don’t know about contracts
Just last year we found out that Marleaus bonuses were split in instalments tbroughout the year. Everyone thought that was impossible
Last edited:
Isn't the tagging rule a simple calculation of the contracts committed for next year? Why would Bouwmeester affect tagging? presumably the blues would make a decision on him in the summer if anything.
The Blues have $73.8m in contracts for next year. That includes Thomas who I'm not sure how he's considered because of the ELC. The cap is $81.5m. If Pietro's over $7.7m, does that not prevent the blues from signing him until the offseason?
Man Bear Pig
Registered User
mouser
Business of Hockey
Nope.
The theory behind the rule is probably to prevent teams from committing to contracts next season that would exceed the current season's Upper Limit. But that's not how the rule is truly implemented. The rule uses the current payroll commitment on contracts then looks at free payroll space and expiring contracts this season--not next season.
As an example of why it would be problematic to include all the contracts "committed for next year":
- Should we include Sven Baertschi at $0, $2.29m or $3.367m?
Occam's Razor. If Faulk had expansion draft protection then the way we'd expect to see that expressed would be his NTC bumped to a NMC for the required period. Or, if there was some sort of clause requiring protection, there is nothing to suggest that we wouldn't have heard about it with the other clauses.
As for your example of the many things we don't know about contracts, there are certainly people that knew that was possible. The CBA is flexible on matters like that, just like it is flexible on the dates when NTCs/NMCs can start and end. People just make assumptions when the majority of bonuses are paid on July 1 and sites like CapFriendly don't provide a breakdown. There is just rarely a reason for the media to touch on that subject for the general fan to be aware of it. There would be a reason to report of a player had secured expansion draft protection in a contract.
Even if the expansion draft was discussed between the Blues and Faulk in negotiations, he'd likely have been told that we have nobody that requires protection and every protection spot is there to be claimed. Not that he isn't going to be protected.
There is more to a NMC than expansion protection. As far as I can see the blues don’t have any one with one.
There is nothing to suggest there is or isn’t any agreement either way. You may believe that the likely would have been told “X”
The lack of knowledge of a clause does not mean it doesn’t exist.
I may believe that no one in their right mind going into UFA status would sign with a team that would be much more likely to leave them unprotected and put them on an expansion team for 5 years. That’s pretty insane to do. He was 9 months from 30 options.
Why do you fight for a full NTC for 5 years......
And then leave an expansion possibility?
That’s a horrible move that makes no sense
On River's podcast he said he had no inside info on Petro at all and that his tweet was just conjecture on his part from his desire to see Petro in STL long term.
Armstrong met with Petro's agent while the team was in Toronto, that is all we know at this point.
Correct the Blues have zero NMCs, Armstrong does not give them out.
The only way to guarantee a player protection from the expansion draft is a NMC. There is no such thing as a no expansion draft clause. Sure a team can tell a player they wont expose him but it wouldnt be contractually binding unless a NMC is in place.
You say "why fight for a NTC for 5 years" you are assuming Faulk wanted this, its possible he was fighting for a NMC and ended up settling for the NTC when the Blues countered with no protections of any kind.
He may have been 9 months from 30 options (actually 31) but a lot can happen in 9 months. We have seen veteran players in the market and take a long time to sign and end up getting significantly less than expected, see Gardiner among others. A long term contract today is worth more than a potential contract tomorrow.
Its also entirely possible that Faulk does not mind going to Seattle. You are assuming no one would want to play for an expansion team which is not the case. Faulk's thinking could be that he will play a limited role in STL for a couple years for a legit shot at the cup then have a bigger role as a mentor to a young Seattle team.
You are making a lot of assumptions about Faulk and his negotiations with the Blues.
Armstrong met with Petro's agent while the team was in Toronto, that is all we know at this point.
Correct the Blues have zero NMCs, Armstrong does not give them out.
The only way to guarantee a player protection from the expansion draft is a NMC. There is no such thing as a no expansion draft clause. Sure a team can tell a player they wont expose him but it wouldnt be contractually binding unless a NMC is in place.
You say "why fight for a NTC for 5 years" you are assuming Faulk wanted this, its possible he was fighting for a NMC and ended up settling for the NTC when the Blues countered with no protections of any kind.
He may have been 9 months from 30 options (actually 31) but a lot can happen in 9 months. We have seen veteran players in the market and take a long time to sign and end up getting significantly less than expected, see Gardiner among others. A long term contract today is worth more than a potential contract tomorrow.
Its also entirely possible that Faulk does not mind going to Seattle. You are assuming no one would want to play for an expansion team which is not the case. Faulk's thinking could be that he will play a limited role in STL for a couple years for a legit shot at the cup then have a bigger role as a mentor to a young Seattle team.
You are making a lot of assumptions about Faulk and his negotiations with the Blues.
1.) A full NTC or NMC is not standard in a negotiation. The fact that a full NTC is in there means it was “fought” for. He got full trade protection for a reason.
Neither of us know what happened. There was conjecture in the first post. Not mine.
2.) there was no such thing as a No trade clause. Or a no movement clause. Until they were written into a contract. Those terms didn’t exist.
A no movement clause was invented in the Bryan McCabe contract. It wasn’t part of the CBA. Thanks JFJ.
Faulk could easily have a no expansion clause in his contract. It would be entirely valid and enforceable.
3.) he may or may not want to be moved to an expansion team. He also may want to move to Edmonton or quit in 2 years to become an Olympic high diver.
We don’t know anything about him. But the evidence is that he wants full NTC control for 5 years. He fought for that.
So you have to look at the evidence. If he really wanted to go to another team. He probably would have signed there in free agency. If he really didn’t want full control. He probably wouldn’t have a full NTC
The idea that Faulk would just not want control over trades to every single team.... but then doesn’t care about moving to a team that doesn’t exist yet. In a city he never played in. With an arena he has never seen
Would be shockingly stupid on his part. We will see how it plays out.
But the idea that he cannot have guaranteed expansion protection written into his contracts is nuts.
1) Yes he fought for it but that doesnt mean he didnt want more than that. It only means that is what both sides agreed to. If Faulk wanted a NMC and the Blues were adamant they would not give a NMC Faulk's only option would be to settle for something less or continue playing in Carolina. For the player it is better to have some protection than no protection. I did not say anything about there being conjecture in your post
2) Correct they didnt exist before they existed, but those were under a previous CBA. The current CBA doesnt allow for additional changes to the SPC outside of what is specifically listed in the CBA. So no he could not easily have a no expansion clause. If this was a thing other players would have already signed these, but its not possible under the current CBA
3) Knowing nothing about what Faulk wants was literally my point, so shouldnt jump to conclusions about what he may or may not want. Some people enjoy a new challenge and look for opportunities to be a leader. A NTC simply means he can decline a trade to any city he wants, it does not mean he does not want to go to Seattle or any other team. Maybe he thinks Seattle is the greatest place in the world and desired to go there as soon as the team was approved. Wanting to go to a specific team does not make someone 'shockingly stupid'
1.) expansion hadn’t happened in what 20 years
At the time of the current CBA being signed.
Expansion was not covered in the current CBA. It doesn’t say anything that I can see saying that players can be offered guaranteed expansion protection. Or not.
The rules of the expansion draft exposure
Were not created at the time. That was
Outside of the current CBA.
2.). No one knows what Faulk wants for sure. We do know he wanted FULL NTC for 5 years. And fought to get. It.
The idea that he would want full NTC to every single team except having no control to a team that doesn’t exist yet is kinda silly.
Faulk might be more than happy to take a trade to Tampa for example. Tax free. Cup favourites. Nice weather.
But he took full NTC. So he wants full control
Expansion draft protection was a hot topic in Vancouver this summer with the Edler and Myers signing. Reports came in that neither player has ED protection. So teams are now more careful about how they word the contract. Knowing that Seattle or another team was coming shortly after LV as the nhl wanted to get to 32 teams.
Many teams got caught for the LV one in 2017.
Many teams got caught for the LV one in 2017.
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
I still think it'll be done sooner rather than later unless Pietrangelo wants something that would price him out of St. Louis, which I tend to doubt.
Would expect it'll be another contract that'll look questionable in years 6-8 but keeps the AAV low enough to keep the team a Cup Contender for the next few years in order to try to go for multiple Cups.
Would expect it'll be another contract that'll look questionable in years 6-8 but keeps the AAV low enough to keep the team a Cup Contender for the next few years in order to try to go for multiple Cups.
It should land somewhere between OEL’s $8.25 per and DD’s $11 mill per. Somewhere close to splitting the difference in the $9.5 mill per range over the full 8 years. If this was Jossi who made $17.5 mill less than AP during contract 2, I’d say he would end up closer to DD.
AP won a cup. Married a local and has triplets. Expect that he wants to remain.
Schenn got 8 years at $6.5 and I fully expect AP to get max term.
1) The CBA states you cannot make changes to the SPC that are not outlined in the CBA. Teams cannot create additional clauses on their own. This is why it has not happened before. Its not just about expansion, its about anything. All SPCs are the same the only allowed changes are NTC and NMC. Teams cannot create their own clauses
2) We know he got NTC for 5 years. We do not know he wanted NTC for 5 years. It was the outcome of a negotiation. If you think he fought for a 5 year NTC wouldnt he fight for a full NTC? A 5 year NTC is what both sides settled for neither side was fighting for a 5 year NTC both sides agreed to it.
You say it would be silly for him to want NTC from every team but Seattle would be "kinda silly" but you are also saying he fought for a 5 year NTC. Those statements arent in agreement with each other. Every player that signed a NTC leading up to Vegas and now leading up to Vegas has agreed to have control over going to any team other than the expansion team.
1.)I believe You can absolutely agree not to be exposed in the expansion draft.
They specifically asked about it in Myers contract. The response was not. “That doesn’t exist”.
Insiders and former GMs are on Toronto radio daily talking about contracts and the CBA. Not one time has anyone EVER said this who is a pro.
Where are you getting your information. Why don’t they know what you know?
2.) the more likely scenario for every player who signed a NTC they have have an agreement or went somewhere they thought they might not be exposed?
Or do you think they All want to go to seattle? Every player who signed a NTC wants to be exposed? Really
Faulk chose to go to a team where they had 3 established D that need protection. It would be very odd to go to a team without some gaurantee
Last edited:
mouser
Business of Hockey
For all the folks arguing, my short summary:
NMC/NTC can contain three unique items:
A) Limited or full protection against being Traded.
B) Protection against being Waived.
C) Protection against being Loaned to the AHL or other leagues.
A full NMC protects against A, B and C.
A partial NMC can protect against B or C.
A full NTC protects against A.
A partial NTC protects against some of A.
One of the things we learned during the Vegas expansion is that the mandatory protection requirement boiled down to (B). Bobby Ryan was said to have a NMC but it turns out that NMC only protected against (C) but (B). Which is why Ottawa could have chosen to expose Ryan to the expansion draft.
Another thing we learned during the Vegas expansion draft is that the media often misses out on partial NMC clauses. Many players were found to have partial NMC’s that had never been publicly disclosed before the draft, including on CF’s website.
Until St Louis explicitly says something to the contrary I will consider it possible that Faulk could have a partial NMC requiring him to protected in the Seattle expansion draft. I don’t expect the media/Capfriendly to be 100% accurate on this without active confirmation.
NMC/NTC can contain three unique items:
A) Limited or full protection against being Traded.
B) Protection against being Waived.
C) Protection against being Loaned to the AHL or other leagues.
A full NMC protects against A, B and C.
A partial NMC can protect against B or C.
A full NTC protects against A.
A partial NTC protects against some of A.
One of the things we learned during the Vegas expansion is that the mandatory protection requirement boiled down to (B). Bobby Ryan was said to have a NMC but it turns out that NMC only protected against (C) but (B). Which is why Ottawa could have chosen to expose Ryan to the expansion draft.
Another thing we learned during the Vegas expansion draft is that the media often misses out on partial NMC clauses. Many players were found to have partial NMC’s that had never been publicly disclosed before the draft, including on CF’s website.
Until St Louis explicitly says something to the contrary I will consider it possible that Faulk could have a partial NMC requiring him to protected in the Seattle expansion draft. I don’t expect the media/Capfriendly to be 100% accurate on this without active confirmation.
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
When was the last time you cried because of a playoff loss?- Latest: brentashton
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 10Staked: $6,733.00Event closes- Updated:
-