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

Status
Not open for further replies.

nuck

Schrodingers Cat
Aug 18, 2005
11,339
2,422
I think Pietrangelo likey winds up somewhere in the Eastern Conference if he doesn't stay here. Unless someone in the West comes up with an amazing roster.

He won't sign in his own division no matter what. The Pacific teams are so feeble that doesn't look like a place a competitive player would look. Somewhere east or back in Stl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk80

mk80

Registered User
Jul 30, 2012
7,962
8,490
He won't sign in his own division no matter what. The Pacific teams are so feeble that doesn't look like a place a competitive player would look. Somewhere east or back in Stl.
Most teams in the Central are pretty cap crunched. So I think his only likely Western Conference destination would be to resign, barring him having a desire to play in a specific market. That's why I think he'll wind up in the East if he doesn't resign here.
 

nuck

Schrodingers Cat
Aug 18, 2005
11,339
2,422
Most teams in the Central are pretty cap crunched. So I think his only likely Western Conference destination would be to resign, barring him having a desire to play in a specific market. That's why I think he'll wind up in the East if he doesn't resign here.

Its definitely not the end of the world for the Blues if he doesn't resign. Look at what happened with Keith and Seabrook. The contracts the Hawks signed these guys to prevented them from a shot at keeping Panarin. 30+ megadeals seldom work out.
 

Eldon Reid

Registered User
Dec 13, 2018
1,328
1,268
The Tarasenko situation could play into what could happen this season and then next season a lot of salary comes off the book.

If Tarasenko is out long term again, He can be placed on LTIR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk80

bigduga

Registered User
Oct 4, 2009
358
154
If Tarasenko’s shoulder is bad enough that he both goes on LTIR, And you’re convinced he stays there long enough to realistically structure a new deal for Pietrangelo around the cap flux that move creates...given the uncertainty of the post-Covid economy, the rather brutal looking flameout in the bubble, and the upcoming expansion draft...I’m not sure how you keep your foot on the spend to the cap pedal in the first place.

The value proposition in Pietrangelo’s deal is very much the next two-three years. You’re pretty much resigned to the fact you’re setting at least some money on fire after that. Given how weird and uncertain you already are about how the league/cap/roster management is going to work in the near term, Losing a huge piece of your forward core just makes that whole thing worse. Flexibility is going to be a huge competitive weapon the next few seasons...if you’re getting rid of *all* of it, you better be damned sure the signing that pushes the last of your chips in puts you Right in the thick of at least the Western conference championship discussion...and without a full functioning Tarasenko, do They honestly think they’re not a step behind the Avs/Vegas in the near term even with Petro?

Talk all you want about the rules of small sample size and not putting too much stock in whatever effort they put on the ice in Edmonton. They also got torched by Vegas and Colorado the last few times they played them before the shutdown. If Tarasenko’s shoulder Turns out to be LTIR level ruined, i think that maybe presents a bigger reason to let someone else pay Pietrangelo than it creates an opportunity to do so yourself.
 

Celtic Note

Living the dream
Dec 22, 2006
16,835
5,555
If Tarasenko’s shoulder is bad enough that he both goes on LTIR, And you’re convinced he stays there long enough to realistically structure a new deal for Pietrangelo around the cap flux that move creates...given the uncertainty of the post-Covid economy, the rather brutal looking flameout in the bubble, and the upcoming expansion draft...I’m not sure how you keep your foot on the spend to the cap pedal in the first place.

The value proposition in Pietrangelo’s deal is very much the next two-three years. You’re pretty much resigned to the fact you’re setting at least some money on fire after that. Given how weird and uncertain you already are about how the league/cap/roster management is going to work in the near term, Losing a huge piece of your forward core just makes that whole thing worse. Flexibility is going to be a huge competitive weapon the next few seasons...if you’re getting rid of *all* of it, you better be damned sure the signing that pushes the last of your chips in puts you Right in the thick of at least the Western conference championship discussion...and without a full functioning Tarasenko, do They honestly think they’re not a step behind the Avs/Vegas in the near term even with Petro?

Talk all you want about the rules of small sample size and not putting too much stock in whatever effort they put on the ice in Edmonton. They also got torched by Vegas and Colorado the last few times they played them before the shutdown. If Tarasenko’s shoulder Turns out to be LTIR level ruined, i think that maybe presents a bigger reason to let someone else pay Pietrangelo than it creates an opportunity to do so yourself.
I think this is all worth discussing.

Signing Petro is a now move (next 3-5 years, not likely a long-term one (although a Chara situation maybe possible, if unlikely). If we are not going to be positioned to win now, then I would ask is there a better way forward?

But before we get to that, I guess the first question to ask is: Are we positioned to win now? We have Tarasenko as a potential question mark. I think over coming the loss of Tarasenko whether temporarily, permanently or in diminished capacity is doable, but far from easy. We would likely need a new 50-60 point point player to come into the fray to maintain some level of skill in our top 6. That doesn’t fully replace Tarasenko’s value at near 70 points, but if they are a decent defensive player and forecheck maybe some of that difference can be mitigated. Taylor Hall would be a good match if we disregard money. Maybe there is some way to make that work? I don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

When you factor in the cap situation, this becomes extremely challenging. I think Thomas and Kyrou are are greatest hopes. They both have the potential to be 50-60 point players. Kyrou is obviously the farthest away.


Losing Petro means our window has closed baring any highly unlikely scenario where we get an upper echelon defensive player or a near generational forward and a strong #2 D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simon IC and mk80

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
Its definitely not the end of the world for the Blues if he doesn't resign. Look at what happened with Keith and Seabrook. The contracts the Hawks signed these guys to prevented them from a shot at keeping Panarin. 30+ megadeals seldom work out.
Well, the Blackhawks won 2 Cups after signing the Keith deal, so it's hard to say that move didn't pay off at all regardless of where they are now. The Seabrook deal was dumb from the get-go, but Pietrangelo isn't Seabrook.

Outside of arguably ROR, there isn't a player on the Blues or in their system that's more important to this team's success on the ice for the next five years or so than Pietrangelo. That's not a player you let walk because you're worried the last three years of the deal *might* somehow hurt the team's chances of doing something they want to do.

If Pietrangelo doesn't re-sign, the Blues immediately stop being serious contenders, and won't be again for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what your definition of "end of the world" is, but that's a pretty serious setback for the franchise.
 

Spektre

Registered User
Apr 10, 2010
8,749
6,433
Krynn
Well, the Blackhawks won 2 Cups after signing the Keith deal, so it's hard to say that move didn't pay off at all regardless of where they are now. The Seabrook deal was dumb from the get-go, but Pietrangelo isn't Seabrook.

Outside of arguably ROR, there isn't a player on the Blues or in their system that's more important to this team's success on the ice for the next five years or so than Pietrangelo. That's not a player you let walk because you're worried the last three years of the deal *might* somehow hurt the team's chances of doing something they want to do.

If Pietrangelo doesn't re-sign, the Blues immediately stop being serious contenders, and won't be again for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure what your definition of "end of the world" is, but that's a pretty serious setback for the franchise.


I’m not disagreeing with you but hasn’t the Faulk deal screamed Armstrong and company were willing to let Pietrangelo walk? I’m sure Army has people around him he gets advice on things like this but the ultimate decision is his.

If Army was getting a lot of advice similar to what you say don’t you think he would lean that way on the decision?? I try to look at the bigger picture. I hate assuming things but being a fan we’re forced to a certain degree. If Army and the majority of executives believe the organization is better off letting him walk vs going over a red line on money or years then the important question becomes why. That’s what we’re about to find out at least somewhat based off what happens this offseason. Do they make other major moves to bring in forward scoring help etc....


I’ll gladly eat crow if 27 resigns but it never made sense paying a 3rd pairing 6.5m/yr. I have to believe right now Army and the execs believed the smarter decision would be to roll with Parayko + Faulk in the top 4 vs meeting Pietrangelo’s asking price.
 

Alklha

Registered User
Sep 7, 2011
16,875
2,751
If the red line is that we won't go to eight years then that red line is indefensible. Schenn is 29 and we gave him an eight year deal. I'd bet that Pietrangelo is closer to a $9m player in 6 years than Schenn is to a $6.5m player.

If the red line is dollars, then we'll have to see the number.

I still don't buy the Faulk stuff. Armstrong tried to extend Shattenkirk before trading him. He signed Bozak when he had a good idea that we were getting ROR. Armstrong loves depth. And it worked cap wise. Without the COVID stuff then we would have had at least $5.5m in cap space to sign Pietrangelo and Dunn to complete our 23 man roster. A move would have to be made, but it was all very manageable. Also, we didn't try to trade Pietrangelo at any point and we didn't actaully sit down with his agents until after we acquired Faulk.

As Easton said... our window is the next 4-5 years. Our key forwards are in their late 20's and, outwith Thomas, we don't have a lot of young forwards with high ceilings. If we're looking to compete in the next 4 years then we shouldn't expect that prospect pool to fill up with high end talent.

If the execs believed that we're better off going with Parayko & Faulk rather than paying Pietrangelo? We had better be sure that Parayko is staying beyond the two years on his contract. While I am generally pessimistic on the prospects of that, losing Pietrangelo only furthers that. Unless there is a significant retooling then we'd be asking him to sign for a team where he is by far the best defenseman, all the key forwards (aside from Thomas) are 30+ and maybe a few good prospects.
 

Spektre

Registered User
Apr 10, 2010
8,749
6,433
Krynn
If the red line is that we won't go to eight years then that red line is indefensible. Schenn is 29 and we gave him an eight year deal. I'd bet that Pietrangelo is closer to a $9m player in 6 years than Schenn is to a $6.5m player.

If the red line is dollars, then we'll have to see the number.

I still don't buy the Faulk stuff. Armstrong tried to extend Shattenkirk before trading him. He signed Bozak when he had a good idea that we were getting ROR. Armstrong loves depth. And it worked cap wise. Without the COVID stuff then we would have had at least $5.5m in cap space to sign Pietrangelo and Dunn to complete our 23 man roster. A move would have to be made, but it was all very manageable. Also, we didn't try to trade Pietrangelo at any point and we didn't actaully sit down with his agents until after we acquired Faulk.

As Easton said... our window is the next 4-5 years. Our key forwards are in their late 20's and, outwith Thomas, we don't have a lot of young forwards with high ceilings. If we're looking to compete in the next 4 years then we shouldn't expect that prospect pool to fill up with high end talent.

If the execs believed that we're better off going with Parayko & Faulk rather than paying Pietrangelo? We had better be sure that Parayko is staying beyond the two years on his contract. While I am generally pessimistic on the prospects of that, losing Pietrangelo only furthers that. Unless there is a significant retooling then we'd be asking him to sign for a team where he is by far the best defenseman, all the key forwards (aside from Thomas) are 30+ and maybe a few good prospects.


If Army is telling the truth about acquiring ROR then the Bozak deal was mainly because he didn’t think he would get ROR and wanted center depth.

I get all the pros with signing Pietrangelo but I think Faulk is the replacement plan. I’m not saying it’s the better idea but it seems that’s what they chose.

We’ll see
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluesXwinXtheXcup

mk80

Registered User
Jul 30, 2012
7,962
8,490
Either way we're looking at some grim futures.

Future A: We sign Petro and keep our window open for the next 5ish years. After that we start to look like a Sharks or Kings team with an aging expensive core, and not a lot of high end talent in the cupboard. But ideally we've added at least one additional Cup by then.

Future B: Petro walks. That is a significant loss on the blueline going forward, and definitely drops us below others in the contender pack. We could still pivot and spend those dollars elsewhere to plug that hole while we still have a lot of our guys in their prime and try to salvage some of our Cup window.

Tarasenko is an X-factor in future B, because that would 2 huge pieces gone if his shoulder is done.

Also we'll see who is lost to Seattle in the expansion draft after next season as well. May not be a big deal, but its another upcoming loss to our current roster
 
Last edited:

nuck

Schrodingers Cat
Aug 18, 2005
11,339
2,422
I’m not disagreeing with you but hasn’t the Faulk deal screamed Armstrong and company were willing to let Pietrangelo walk? I’m sure Army has people around him he gets advice on things like this but the ultimate decision is his.

If Army was getting a lot of advice similar to what you say don’t you think he would lean that way on the decision?? I try to look at the bigger picture. I hate assuming things but being a fan we’re forced to a certain degree. If Army and the majority of executives believe the organization is better off letting him walk vs going over a red line on money or years then the important question becomes why. That’s what we’re about to find out at least somewhat based off what happens this offseason. Do they make other major moves to bring in forward scoring help etc....


I’ll gladly eat crow if 27 resigns but it never made sense paying a 3rd pairing 6.5m/yr. I have to believe right now Army and the execs believed the smarter decision would be to roll with Parayko + Faulk in the top 4 vs meeting Pietrangelo’s asking price.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Armstrong expected to soon have P & P at $18M or more and that was too much so one had to go. He probably chooses to resign AP if he can and deal Parayko for value, so he adds Faulk. If he can't resign Pietrangelo then Faulk is the fall back. You don't add a $6M right shot D with a NT to experiment on converting him to a lefty, or using him as a 3rd pairing RD. From that I am guessing there was perhaps not a scenario where he expected to retain both Parayko and Pietro.

The lack of a deal with AP has to leave management a bit uncertain that he wants to even stay with the club but in interviews as recently as July AP talks about hoping to get a deal done to stay so I don't get any sense he was planning on just walking. In mid July he said:

"Not much to say about it other than the same thing Army said. The goal is to get something done. That's been the goal since the beginning. We'll see where things go. Focus right now is to get through this thing healthy and playing. We'll see where things end up."

No promise there but that doesn't sound like a guy who told his GM he was leaving either. So Pietro wants to check out his options. Maybe the Blues are doing the same thing with Hall. Doesn't mean AP's gone but I wouldn't expect to see both him and Parayko next year.
 

Spektre

Registered User
Apr 10, 2010
8,749
6,433
Krynn
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Armstrong expected to soon have P & P at $18M or more and that was too much so one had to go. He probably chooses to resign AP if he can and deal Parayko for value, so he adds Faulk. If he can't resign Pietrangelo then Faulk is the fall back. You don't add a $6M right shot D with a NT to experiment on converting him to a lefty, or using him as a 3rd pairing RD. From that I am guessing there was perhaps not a scenario where he expected to retain both Parayko and Pietro.

The lack of a deal with AP has to leave management a bit uncertain that he wants to even stay with the club but in interviews as recently as July AP talks about hoping to get a deal done to stay so I don't get any sense he was planning on just walking. In mid July he said:

"Not much to say about it other than the same thing Army said. The goal is to get something done. That's been the goal since the beginning. We'll see where things go. Focus right now is to get through this thing healthy and playing. We'll see where things end up."

No promise there but that doesn't sound like a guy who told his GM he was leaving either. So Pietro wants to check out his options. Maybe the Blues are doing the same thing with Hall. Doesn't mean AP's gone but I wouldn't expect to see both him and Parayko next year.


Agreed with all except putting much stock in what players say publicly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alklha and mk80

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Armstrong expected to soon have P & P at $18M or more and that was too much so one had to go. He probably chooses to resign AP if he can and deal Parayko for value, so he adds Faulk. If he can't resign Pietrangelo then Faulk is the fall back. You don't add a $6M right shot D with a NT to experiment on converting him to a lefty, or using him as a 3rd pairing RD. From that I am guessing there was perhaps not a scenario where he expected to retain both Parayko and Pietro.

The lack of a deal with AP has to leave management a bit uncertain that he wants to even stay with the club but in interviews as recently as July AP talks about hoping to get a deal done to stay so I don't get any sense he was planning on just walking. In mid July he said:

"Not much to say about it other than the same thing Army said. The goal is to get something done. That's been the goal since the beginning. We'll see where things go. Focus right now is to get through this thing healthy and playing. We'll see where things end up."

No promise there but that doesn't sound like a guy who told his GM he was leaving either. So Pietro wants to check out his options. Maybe the Blues are doing the same thing with Hall. Doesn't mean AP's gone but I wouldn't expect to see both him and Parayko next year.
What is wrong with having Parayko and Pietrangelo at $18 mil? They are both excellent defensemen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk80

nuck

Schrodingers Cat
Aug 18, 2005
11,339
2,422
What is wrong with having Parayko and Pietrangelo at $18 mil? They are both excellent defensemen.

You would have to ask Armstrong that. Internal salary balance from D to forwards? Safety net in case they want to go big game hunting for a UFA forward? Last September when he is looking at what LA and SJ are paying for their #1s he might be thinking $11M for AP alone and who knows for Parayko if he gets any better? Two potential 8 figure defensemen salaries expecting 8 year deals is a lot to process, especially when you are signing them over age 30. The cap situation looked a lot different a year ago.
 

Alklha

Registered User
Sep 7, 2011
16,875
2,751
What is wrong with having Parayko and Pietrangelo at $18 mil? They are both excellent defensemen.
If that's the option, then we should absolutely do that.

If we were in a situtuation where, for whatever reason, management didn't want $18m committed to two defensemen? Extend Pietrangelo and trade Parayko. Pietrangelo + haul of young assets is a vastly superior option than just having Parayko.

But, ideally, we would keep both long term.
 

Chojin

Tiny Panger...
Apr 6, 2011
4,301
573
I'm pretty optimistic about Petro coming back. I can't imagine wanting to move during a pandemic, and he's got a pretty good situation here. I really don't know what you do about Faulk though. That signing continues to be brutal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cotton McKnight
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->