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

[Blanick]

I believe in Army, he must have a master plan. He's been too good at his job lately to mess something this big up. I have faith that #27 will be wearing the Note a year from now. Doug's still got some tricks up his sleeve.

I agree to an extent that Army has earned some benefit of doubt after last year and I hope/think he has something up his sleeve. However, if his master plan is to replace Petro with Faulk then that good will is he has built up is going to dry up fast.

 

[The Electrician]

Provided Petro wants stay in STL and his contract demands aren't ludicrous, I can't see how Army doesn't get him signed.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think everybody agree with you @Blanick about if Pietro walks next offseason its Army's biggest failure and Army should get fired.

Let guy walk away for nothing who bringed to city and franchise his first Stanley Cup.

LOL at firing the GM a season after the team wins the Cup and enters this season as the Western Conference favorite.

 

[David Dennison]

I agree to an extent that Army has earned some benefit of doubt after last year and I hope/think he has something up his sleeve. However, if his master plan is to replace Petro with Faulk then that good will is he has built up is going to dry up fast.

Certainly there is a dollar amount where it doesn't make sense to bring Petro back, not any different than Pujols coming off of a World Series.

I do take it as a bad sign for Petro returning, but it's good to not have all your eggs in one basket. If Petro does come back, I think it would be easy enough to offload Faulk to Seattle. I think the trade value was fair but the contract a little high/long.

I wonder if the Blues saw a little Rundblad in Bokk, super skilled Euro but too soft and not aggressive enough for the NHL. They pivoted off both quickly, history has proven them right on Rundblad fwiw.

 

[Blueston]

Certainly there is a dollar amount where it doesn't make sense to bring Petro back, not any different than Pujols coming off of a World Series.

I do take it as a bad sign for Petro returning, but it's good to not have all your eggs in one basket. If Petro does come back, I think it would be easy enough to offload Faulk to Seattle. I think the trade value was fair but the contract a little high/long.

I wonder if the Blues saw a little Rundblad in Bokk, super skilled Euro but too soft and not aggressive enough for the NHL. They pivoted off both quickly, history has proven them right on Rundblad fwiw.

Think this is right. If we let Petro walk its bc we didn't want to give him DD or EK money and he wouldn't take OEL+ type money. Army I am sure has good idea of what he is willing to do with Petro and also what it will take. Army knows how much better Petro is than Faulk. Faulk is to replace Shatty who he never wanted to let go. I still think we sign Petro in the $8.5-9.5mm range and this trade doesn't at all hinder that.

 

[David Dennison]

Think this is right. If we let Petro walk its bc we didn't want to give him DD or EK money and he wouldn't take OEL+ type money. Army I am sure has good idea of what he is willing to do with Petro and also what it will take. Army knows how much better Petro is than Faulk. Faulk is to replace Shatty who he never wanted to let go. I still think we sign Petro in the $8.5-9.5mm range and this trade doesn't at all hinder that.

Yeah and the emergence of Parayko is also important because he is that true #1 shutdown defenseman. Like if Paraykos is eating the tough minutes and Faulk (or Dunn) gets the better offensive opportunities, I don't think we are any worse off than when it was Petro and Shattenkirk, respectively, filling those roles.

 

[Mike Liut]

There’s plenty of ways to make room for Petro. Money won’t be the reason he leaves unless he wants the moon.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Army, PAY PIE. Don't be cheap on this one.

 

[Ranksu]

There’s plenty of ways to make room for Petro. Money won’t be the reason he leaves unless he wants the moon.

Do you wanna know how many Pietro to Leafs threads we'll see in main board after this Faulk trade?

 

[HighNote]

I agree to an extent that Army has earned some benefit of doubt after last year and I hope/think he has something up his sleeve. However, if his master plan is to replace Petro with Faulk then that good will is he has built up is going to dry up fast.

When I say I believe in Army, I'm saying that I believe that's not his master plan. There's no way he'd do that unless Petro has literally told him that he's not resigning (for whatever reason) and that we're going with Parayko as our #1 after next year.

 

[Brian39]

I think there is a little bit of a causation/correlation disagreement here.

We will not lose Petro because we signed Faulk. There is absolutely zero chance that this move was made without consideration for Petro's next contract. The negotiations with Petro will not end with Army saying "we would have been happy to give you X but now we can only afford X-2 because we brought Faulk in, so I guess we're not getting a deal done." This signing might be an indication that we don't expect to get a deal done with Petro, but that is based on the team already having a firm walk away number in mind.

If this move signals the end of Petro as a Blue, it is a reaction to that reality, not the cause of it.

 

[SIU LAW]

I am curious if the Petro negotiations go south not over salary, but term. That analytics comment from Army today was an eyebrow raiser.

 

[Brian39]

Double Post for another thought:

People keep saying that there is no way we will pay a 3RD $6.5. But I disagree with that sentiment. We paid a 4th liner $5.75 mil this year. We're paying our backup $4.35 mil this year and will likely be using Steen on the 4th line again. We brought in Bozak to be a top 6 player, but were more than content playing him as a 3rd liner for $5 mil after we brought ROR on board. Army has demonstrated that he is more concerned about building the best overall team under the total cap number than he is concerned about getting hung up on overpaying for each specific role.

If Army believes that Faulk can excel as a 3rd pairing D man and that having a guy like Faulk on the 3rd pairing can give us a top 5 D group for years to come, I don't think for a second that he will get hung up on the fact that the guy in the 3rd pairing role is making more than you'd like to pay for that role. It is true that most teams don't pay a 3rd pairing guy $6.5 mil. But it is also true that for all of his flaws, Faulk would be hands down the best 3rd pairing D man in the league by a mile if that's how we use him.

The Sharks have $34 mil tied up in their D at the moment with over 20 of that coming from the right side. I think we can build a quality left side even if we tie up $22 mil in the right side. Let's say Dunn gets $6.5 mil on his next deal. Gunny and Bortz sticking around brings our total D cost up to $31 mil for those 6 and then you have to count on one of our prospects being the 7th D man (potentially overtaking Gunny and/or Bortz). If you want to upgrade Gunny or Bortz and an internal guy can't do it by 20/21, then spending another $4 mil on a middle pairing LD still keeps your total under $35 mil. That's not at all an unreasonable amount to spend on your D and that group should be among the league's best so you would be returning value of your investment. I'm comfortable spending $35 mil of an $83+ mil cap on the D during a window where ROR and Tarasenko combine for just $15 mil, Perron is making just $4 mil and we have a number of young, cost controlled guys to plug into the rest of the top 9. We should be able to have a very D-heavy cap structure for the next 4 years given the state of our prospect pool and the young forwards in the organization with multiple ears of team control.

 

[Brockon]

Do you have a source?

The presser DA gave this afternoon specifically emphasizes it's a 5 year NTC, then a 2 year 15 team M-NTC.

 

[simon IC]

I think there is a little bit of a causation/correlation disagreement here.

We will not lose Petro because we signed Faulk. There is absolutely zero chance that this move was made without consideration for Petro's next contract. The negotiations with Petro will not end with Army saying "we would have been happy to give you X but now we can only afford X-2 because we brought Faulk in, so I guess we're not getting a deal done." This signing might be an indication that we don't expect to get a deal done with Petro, but that is based on the team already having a firm walk away number in mind.

If this move signals the end of Petro as a Blue, it is a reaction to that reality, not the cause of it.

Yes. Just like trading for Murray Baron was a reaction to losing Scott Stevens. The Blues knew that Baron could never replace Stevens, but they still needed a similar body in place. If Pietrangelo wants to leave, there simply isn't a replacement for him, but we will still need a top 4 RD to carry on. (And I just made myself queasy typing this. ).

 

[Xerloris]

Take some Valium and relax guys. Big dick Doug has our back.

 

[Blueston]

Yes. Just like trading for Murray Baron was a reaction to losing Scott Stevens. The Blues knew that Baron could never replace Stevens, but they still needed a similar body in place. If Pietrangelo wants to leave, there simply isn't a replacement for him, but we will still need a top 4 RD to carry on. (And I just made myself queasy typing this. ).

Interesting enough, the guy we foolishly dealt to acquire Baron is currently the Hurricanes coach.

 

[The Note]

After sleeping on it, I think they'll still sign Petro assuming he comes in at the ~9 AAV range. This will almost definitely necessitate getting out from under one of Steen/Allen a year early (which I don't think is a huge deal). Bouwmeester will either retire or not be back with Mikkola likely taking a spot on LD. Assuming a bit of a cap raise, I think it'll work out. I think it more likely spells the end of Schenn's time here and they slide Thomas over to C, because being able to fit Schenn in at around 6.5-7 AAV would require some real creativity. Especially with Parayko and Schwartz on the horizon.

I think the important thing that got lost in the shuffle -and this includes by me- is that the did get better in this trade. Faulk is a big upgrade over Edmundson and strength from the d-corps was big reason why they just won a Cup. The extension is...interesting but, I think there's a very real chance Faulk is a Seattle Whatever after the expansion draft.

 

[MissouriMook]

Dan Rosen mentioned on his mailbag this morning on Sirius XM NHL Radio that he thinks the Blues are not going to offer Petro 7-8 years, but that they would probably give him 3-4 years at top dollar. I don't know if Rosen has any specific insight into our front office, but it could be that the Faulk trade and extension is Army's hedge against Petro walking over years and not AAV.

On one hand, I see (and support) Army's POV (if this is true) about not wanting to pay top dollar to a guy when he's 38 years old, as Petro would be at the end of an 8 year extension. On the other, they pulled the trigger quickly on a 7 year deal (albeit for a guy who is more than 2 years younger) within minutes of acquiring him in a trade. What kind of message does that send?

Ultimately, I want to see Petro stay. Hopefully there is a compromise around 6 years or so, and Faulk ends up as fodder for the expansion draft. But if it appears that Petro is not going to extend, I would rather trade him sooner if you can get significantly more value for him than to wait until the TDL and have to decide if he's worth what someone else is offering.

 

[Blueston]

Dan Rosen mentioned on his mailbag this morning on Sirius XM NHL Radio that he thinks the Blues are not going to offer Petro 7-8 years, but that they would probably give him 3-4 years at top dollar. I don't know if Rosen has any specific insight into our front office, but it could be that the Faulk trade and extension is Army's hedge against Petro walking over years and not AAV.

On one hand, I see (and support) Army's POV (if this is true) about not wanting to pay top dollar to a guy when he's 38 years old, as Petro would be at the end of an 8 year extension. On the other, they pulled the trigger quickly on a 7 year deal (albeit for a guy who is more than 2 years younger) within minutes of acquiring him in a trade. What kind of message does that send?

Ultimately, I want to see Petro stay. Hopefully there is a compromise around 6 years or so, and Faulk ends up as fodder for the expansion draft. But if it appears that Petro is not going to extend, I would rather trade him sooner if you can get significantly more value for him than to wait until the TDL and have to decide if he's worth what someone else is offering.

I could see us do 5 at 9-9.5 for Petro. If we go longer would likely be at significantly less cap hit bc we won't value those out years that high.

 

[WeWentBlues]

Dan Rosen mentioned on his mailbag this morning on Sirius XM NHL Radio that he thinks the Blues are not going to offer Petro 7-8 years, but that they would probably give him 3-4 years at top dollar. I don't know if Rosen has any specific insight into our front office, but it could be that the Faulk trade and extension is Army's hedge against Petro walking over years and not AAV.

On one hand, I see (and support) Army's POV (if this is true) about not wanting to pay top dollar to a guy when he's 38 years old, as Petro would be at the end of an 8 year extension. On the other, they pulled the trigger quickly on a 7 year deal (albeit for a guy who is more than 2 years younger) within minutes of acquiring him in a trade. What kind of message does that send?

Ultimately, I want to see Petro stay. Hopefully there is a compromise around 6 years or so, and Faulk ends up as fodder for the expansion draft. But if it appears that Petro is not going to extend, I would rather trade him sooner if you can get significantly more value for him than to wait until the TDL and have to decide if he's worth what someone else is offering.

Sounds a lot like the Backes situation. Maybe Armstrong is hedging his bet in case the captain decides to walk away again over term?

If any of our RHS defenseman can play their offhand, this move is a slam dunk for 19-20 and will ensure that our RHD is still above average beyond 19-20 if Petro walks.

 

[Celtic Note]

I could see us do 5 at 9-9.5 for Petro. If we go longer would likely be at significantly less cap hit bc we won't value those out years that high.

9-9.5 seems like a longer term range with simple hometown discount applied. At 5 years, I would expect a higher AAV.

 

[Brockon]

9-9.5 seems like a longer term range with simple hometown discount applied. At 5 years, I would expect a higher AAV.

I think you're right, we're probably looking at ~10-10.5 on a 4/5 year deal. Then maybe Petro gives us some nice lower AAV shorter deals if he wants to keep wearing the note beyond that.

 

[Blueston]

9-9.5 seems like a longer term range with simple hometown discount applied. At 5 years, I would expect a higher AAV.

You may be right but that would be quite painful.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I’d do 10.5 per over 5 years without thinking twice.