Speculation: Pietrangelo's future (reports: to go to FA)

[Dbrownss]

I just caught the end of the conversation this morning on SiriusXM NHL Radio, but Brian Burke was on and it sounded like he was under the impression that term is just as likely to be the hold up as AAV. He didn't seem to think Army was inclined to go 8 years on a player that will be 38 when the contract ends. This is just one guy's opinion, but Burke has spent a lot of time as a coach and manager in this league and probably knows Army pretty well. At the end of the topic, Burke seemed to suggest that he could see Army letting Petro walk before giving him an 8 year deal, thus the contract extension for Faulk.

He could have just paid AP27 whatever he wanted and not signed Faulk. That would have been better. Faulk for 8yrs isn't Petro. If Parayko doesnt become a 2 way force. The Blues will be much worse off. I bought into the Faulk=insurance thing.....but yeesh, it's not looking good

 

[AjaxManifesto]

He could have just paid AP27 whatever he wanted and not signed Faulk. That would have been better. Faulk for 8yrs isn't Petro. If Parayko doesnt become a 2 way force. The Blues will be much worse off. I bought into the Faulk=insurance thing.....but yeesh, it's not looking good

I'm still hopeful.

New team, new town.

 

[Oberyn]

Never understood the Faulk deal at all. I'd have rather re-upped Pietrangelo and then trade Edmundson for a pick if we don't want to pay him.

 

[STL BLUES]

At the time Faulk was both an easy upgrade over Ed and a possible future insurance player. Was there another right hand D available that could help fill the gap if Petro leaves? Maybe we are overpaying but a bird in hand...

My gut tells me that Army and Petro are not going to solidify the deal and Army knew that when he traded Ed. So Petro gets moved for some parts at or before the trade deadline. And we have Faulk who was and is the best Army could do without giving up a lot. Waiting to fill Petor’s Loss at the TDL could have been nearly impossible. Faulk is not Petro and I get that. But it might be that Faulk was as good a deal you could do at the time. In Army I trust.

 

[Brian39]

At the time Faulk was both an easy upgrade over Ed and a possible future insurance player. Was there another right hand D available that could help fill the gap if Petro leaves? Maybe we are overpaying but a bird in hand...

My gut tells me that Army and Petro are not going to solidify the deal and Army knew that when he traded Ed. So Petro gets moved for some parts at or before the trade deadline. And we have Faulk who was and is the best Army could do without giving up a lot. Waiting to fill Petor’s Loss at the TDL could have been nearly impossible. Faulk is not Petro and I get that. But it might be that Faulk was as good a deal you could do at the time. In Army I trust.

I've asked this question a ton of times, but still haven't gotten an answer: Why would Petro want to waive his NTC near the TDL? His family is comfortable here, so I can't imagine he is eager to move them to a new city that will very likely be a temporary stop before a permanent move in the summer. I also can't imagine that he would be eager to have a separate home city from his family for 3+ months. So it makes no sense from a personal standpoint. From a professional standpoint, he is comfortable here and in a great position to continue building a fantastic resume for this summer. Why risk a slump while learning a new system, risk reduced usage or risk having an element of his game exposed/exploited in a system that doesn't prioritize his strengths like ours does? Shatty's lackluster performance in Washington certainly cooled the hype on him that summer. Why would Petro be looking to risk that instead of refusing to waive the NTC and play out the season on a good team in a good role that he is comfortable with?

 

[Blueston]

I've asked this question a ton of times, but still haven't gotten an answer: Why would Petro want to waive his NTC near the TDL? His family is comfortable here, so I can't imagine he is eager to move them to a new city that will very likely be a temporary stop before a permanent move in the summer. I also can't imagine that he would be eager to have a separate home city from his family for 3+ months. So it makes no sense from a personal standpoint. From a professional standpoint, he is comfortable here and in a great position to continue building a fantastic resume for this summer. Why risk a slump while learning a new system, risk reduced usage or risk having an element of his game exposed/exploited in a system that doesn't prioritize his strengths like ours does? Shatty's lackluster performance in Washington certainly cooled the hype on him that summer. Why would Petro be looking to risk that instead of refusing to waive the NTC and play out the season on a good team in a good role that he is comfortable with?

Only way it makes any sense is if we are out of contention.

 

[Majorityof1]

I've asked this question a ton of times, but still haven't gotten an answer: Why would Petro want to waive his NTC near the TDL? His family is comfortable here, so I can't imagine he is eager to move them to a new city that will very likely be a temporary stop before a permanent move in the summer. I also can't imagine that he would be eager to have a separate home city from his family for 3+ months. So it makes no sense from a personal standpoint. From a professional standpoint, he is comfortable here and in a great position to continue building a fantastic resume for this summer. Why risk a slump while learning a new system, risk reduced usage or risk having an element of his game exposed/exploited in a system that doesn't prioritize his strengths like ours does? Shatty's lackluster performance in Washington certainly cooled the hype on him that summer. Why would Petro be looking to risk that instead of refusing to waive the NTC and play out the season on a good team in a good role that he is comfortable with?

Playing Devil's advocate here, because I agree with what you are saying. However, if we are even contemplating trading him, there had to have been a pretty substantial breakdown in the negotiation process. That does not necessarily imply bad blood. It could, but it could also more likely is just a financial impasse.

That still means Petro will eventually have to uproot his family, and figure out where he fits on a new team. Why not take the opportunity for a couple month test drive? Let's say Toronto is interested and so is he. What happens if he waits until next year and realize he hates playing for Babcock, doesn't like his teammates and is annoyed by the Toronto media. Oooops, as he is now committed for 7-8 years. But if he goes and tries it there, realizes all those things, he can then sign with someone else instead.

A few months of difficulty is not that bad when compared to potentially 8 years of it. And I doubt someone with Petro's reputation would tank his next deal too much with a so-so stint on a new team. He'd have to absolutely tank to really effect things. Top 10 RHD don't hit the open market often enough to sink his prospects too much. Shattenkirk is not near the level of Pietrangelo. Also Shattenkirk only wanted to deal with one team, so that effected his contract more than any cooling due to a short stint in Washington.

 

[MissouriMook]

The long and the short of it is that the only reasonable way to see Petro being traded in-season is if he is being traded to a team where he plans on extending, therefore simply accelerating the process of moving his family to a new location if he is leaving St. Louis behind. Ironically, as unlikely as this scenario happens to be, that is also the best case scenario for the Blues if they are trading him in the first place as it is likely a move that is made with an extension negotiated as both a condition of the deal from the Blues side and a condition for Petro waiving his NTC from the players side, thus increasing his value well beyond that of a pure rental.

I would put the likelihood of this happening at < 10% at this point, but stranger things have happened. Stay tuned.

 

[WeWentBlues]

The story of David Backes should be a cautionary tale for Pietrangelo if motivations for leaving are purely financial. If you asked David Backes if that extra year and extra few million were worth it, what would he say?

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The story of David Backes should be a cautionary tale for Pietrangelo if motivations for leaving are purely financial. If you asked David Backes if that extra year and extra few million were worth it, what would he say?

Is that what Backes did? Maybe he was trying to maximize his Cup chances and came to that conclusion. It’s not like he took more money to go to a rebuilding project or a crappy place to live.

Either way, I certainly don’t begrudge the guy looking for several million more on his last contract, especially when you see how much he’s given up physically to play the game. He’s never had anything but good things to say about St Louis.

 

[WeWentBlues]

Is that what Backes did? Maybe he was trying to maximize his Cup chances and came to that conclusion. It’s not like he took more money to go to a rebuilding project or a crappy place to live.

Either way, I certainly don’t begrudge the guy looking for several million more on his last contract, especially when you see how much he’s given up physically to play the game. He’s never had anything but good things to say about St Louis.

Yes. He left with unfinished business here for the simple fact that Boston offered an extra year. I can't help but think he regrets the decision in hindsight. I wasn't bashing him. That's the business side of hockey.

A similar outcome with Pietrangelo could be on the horizon. I don't think it was out of bounds to suggest that Pietrangelo consider what has unfolded for his good friend Backes since leaving. Chill

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Yes. He left with unfinished business here for the simple fact that Boston offered an extra year. I can't help but think he regrets the decision in hindsight. I wasn't bashing him. That's the business side of hockey.

A similar outcome with Pietrangelo could be on the horizon. I don't think it was out of bounds to suggest that Pietrangelo consider what has unfolded for his good friend Backes since leaving. Chill

It could be. I think fans don’t realize the value to players of being in a good situation: playing for a coach you like, teammates you are friends with, team success, etc. Its worth a lot. I’m a lot less concerned about Pietro deciding to leave than some on here.

But I have to think that winning a Cup factors into it. Once you’ve done that, there is a freedom to take some chances on team competitiveness in where you choose. On the other hand, what I’ve heard from Blues players sounds more like an increased hunger to do it again, but now coupled with the confidence to know they can. If Pietro is feeling that way, is a 10% higher deal enough to gamble with that chance? Probably not.

 

[MissouriMook]

I'll go back to what Brian Burke said earlier this week, that the hold up could be term. It was widely reported that the Blues offered Backes a 4 year deal similar to the Bruins offer in 2016, but would not budge on adding a 5th year. Backes was 32 at the time.

Fast forwarding to Pietrangelo's situation, he will be 30 when his next contract kicks in. The Blues held the line on their captain in 2016 and wouldn't sign a deal to pay him until he was 37. Boston did. If we extrapolate the ages, that would mean that a similar "line in the sand" would have the Blues refusing to come off of an extension longer than 6 years to take Petro to 36, and his agent is likely dug in that an 8 year max extension is the going rate for players of his caliber.

If I'm Petro, I don't agree to an extension in the $8.5M-$9M range unless I'm getting max term. If I'm Army, the only way I offer Petro significantly more than what Josi got is if I am getting a significant concession in term. One of the things you often hear quoted from agents and GMs is that the total amount of the contract is generally far more important in these negotiations than AAV, while "fan based" discussions of contracts tend to focus more on AAV than on total dollars. I don't know Petro (or any of the players in this scenario for that matter) but I wonder if it is important to him to make more in total dollars on this deal than 90 and 91 got ($60M total) or if he has a specific number in mind. A $60M deal over 6 years would put his cap hit at $10M, so if he wants to surpass that without maxing out his term he will need to be at $10M+ for his AAV. On the other hand, it would be easy to get him above that $60M threshold on a max term deal because there is no way I see him at less than $8M AAV which would put him at $64M for the life of the deal.

Sorry for the long post, but I find this side of sports to be fascinating, especially in a cap environment when you have to balance the distribution of available compensation. I wish we knew more about the inner workings of these negotiations, and more importantly where the sticking points lie, but I certainly understand why neither side wants to negotiate this deal in public. Hopefully, if any of the points above are correct, we find a way to meet in the middle and get Petro back in the fold under something like a 7 year, $63M ($9M AAV) deal.

 

[Brian39]

I'll go back to what Brian Burke said earlier this week, that the hold up could be term. It was widely reported that the Blues offered Backes a 4 year deal similar to the Bruins offer in 2016, but would not budge on adding a 5th year. Backes was 32 at the time.

Fast forwarding to Pietrangelo's situation, he will be 30 when his next contract kicks in. The Blues held the line on their captain in 2016 and wouldn't sign a deal to pay him until he was 37. Boston did. If we extrapolate the ages, that would mean that a similar "line in the sand" would have the Blues refusing to come off of an extension longer than 6 years to take Petro to 36, and his agent is likely dug in that an 8 year max extension is the going rate for players of his caliber.

If I'm Petro, I don't agree to an extension in the $8.5M-$9M range unless I'm getting max term. If I'm Army, the only way I offer Petro significantly more than what Josi got is if I am getting a significant concession in term. One of the things you often hear quoted from agents and GMs is that the total amount of the contract is generally far more important in these negotiations than AAV, while "fan based" discussions of contracts tend to focus more on AAV than on total dollars. I don't know Petro (or any of the players in this scenario for that matter) but I wonder if it is important to him to make more in total dollars on this deal than 90 and 91 got ($60M total) or if he has a specific number in mind. A $60M deal over 6 years would put his cap hit at $10M, so if he wants to surpass that without maxing out his term he will need to be at $10M+ for his AAV. On the other hand, it would be easy to get him above that $60M threshold on a max term deal because there is no way I see him at less than $8M AAV which would put him at $64M for the life of the deal.

Sorry for the long post, but I find this side of sports to be fascinating, especially in a cap environment when you have to balance the distribution of available compensation. I wish we knew more about the inner workings of these negotiations, and more importantly where the sticking points lie, but I certainly understand why neither side wants to negotiate this deal in public. Hopefully, if any of the points above are correct, we find a way to meet in the middle and get Petro back in the fold under something like a 7 year, $63M ($9M AAV) deal.

Great post, although I think the Blues will be more willing to budge on term with Petro than they were with Backes. Petro is unquestionably a better player than Backes ever was. He also plays a position/style that generally ages much more gracefully than Backes' and we would be buying 2 more "prime" years on the front end of the contract than we thought we would have been buying out of Backes. Moreover, after the Cup win, I don't think there is any question that there is more emotional value to Petro than there was with Backes. The Blues may be trying to find a way to shave term of the contract, but at the end of the day I think they are much more likely to budge on that if needed than they were with Backes. With all that said, that is my guess and it could very well be wrong. I don't think Petro stays if we aren't eventually willing to offer 8 years because I don't think we have the cap flexibility to get the AAV high enough for him to justify a short term deal.

I think if Petro was willing to even consider signing for less total dollars than Tarasenko, a deal would have been done a couple months ago. That's an absolutely no-doubt-about-it $10+ mil discount from his market value. Honestly it is almost certainly a $15 mil discount from what he could get if he was willing to simply go to the highest bidder with no other considerations. I would be surprised if Petro hit UFA and didn't receive a 7 year deal at $10.7 mil from a desperate team who views an elite RHD as the last piece of their puzzle. I'm confident that Petro will accept a discount to play here. Most guys are willing to take some discount to be in a good situation. I doubt he will be willing to leave $10-15 mil on the table though.

 

[Ranksu]

Where Pietro would go IF he doesn't re-sign with Blues?

 

[Blueston]

Where Pietro would go IF he doesn't re-sign with Blues?

Toronto fans would have you believe there but would be hard to fit in his $. Realistically not many teams will have much space. Detroit will have lots of cap space but don’t think Yzerman would go all in on aging Petro for rebuilding team. Team that might be best fit on number of levels is Vegas.

 

[DatDude44]

I’d be shocked if he doesn’t resign this offseason, he’s had a monster start to the year and brought us our cup, the agent is probably asking for a max term and huge AAV probly around 11.... because they always ask for the moon early and I’d imagine they settle for 6-8 years at 9-9.5 mill AAV depending on petros numbers by years end.

 

[ort]

He'll get 8 years. He won't sign for 6.

My guess is he'll get 8 years at like 10 - 10.5.

 

[Note Worthy]

He'll re-sign. He's captained our first Cup and this team is clearly in a "win now" window. You don't let someone like Pietrangelo walk if you're "win now".

I mean, we're overpaying Jake Allen in a backup role because we're in a win now mode.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

We have two recent data points that getting max money doesn't always lead to good things:

1) Toronto...melt down....bulk of payroll going to just a few guys
2) Chicago...cant dress a full roster due to cap issues

Hopefully Petro sees this.

 

[Robb_K]

Both Pietrangelo and The Blues don't want him to leave. He has no good place to go. I see them making a deal. Maybe 8 years for $9.5 million.

 

[STL BLUES]

Waiting may or may not be in his best interest. Gambling...

 

[Ranksu]

Im too sceptic this whole situation.

 

[WeWentBlues]

As a fan of St. Louis sports teams, I won't count anything as a done deal until the ink is dry on the paper.

Really hoping that ink is dry sooner rather than later. My anxiety will steadily increase as we approach the trade deadline and exponentially after the season and approaching July 1.

 

[Stlblue50]

I don’t think Petro is worth signing to an 8 year deal or anything in the 9+ mill range, regardless of the term. If he won’t budge then it’s best to keep him for another shot at the cup then what you would get in a standard rental package.

I want to see him stay but we can’t handcuff the team long term over him. It’s hard to pull off but a sign/trade combo would bring back a very nice return!