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

[GoldenSeal]

Letting Schenn walk so that we can give Petro obscene contract is bad asset management. You sign Petro to reasonable contract you can sign Schenn too.

Define obscene.

 

[m1a2lt]

I mean, I like the expansion theory from a selfish standpoint as I really want Petro to retire a blue, but seems like pretty ****ty thing for an organization to sign a guy long term with the intentions of getting the best 2 years of the deal out of him and leaving him unprotected for an expansion team to pick up.

Late to the conversation but I see this the other way: Kinda crappy to sign a new guy to the money that should be going to the captain of the first STL Stanley Cup team; really hope Army had that discussion with Petro before he did this. Blues owe nothing to Faulk; let him burn. Petro, the Blues owe him that courtesy to have the conversation. Now, if he is going to be part of the "let me test free agency" crowd, the loyalty card is gone.

Worst case scenario I choked on this morning while taking a shower: We know we can't sign Petro so to Winnipeg for their hold out: Laine. Hmmm...

I know, in division, blah, blah, blah...sorry, was cleaning the uglies when I thought of it.

 

[m1a2lt]

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.

Well said. No way Army didn't talk to the Petro camp before doing this.

 

[Klank Loves You]

If Seattle takes Faulk, this truly looks like 4D chess. That extension is hard to swallow for a cup contending team, but there is a lot to like for an expansion team.

 

[Renard]

I can absolutely conceive it. I can't conceive it being a strong contender to win another Cup without two defensive pairings that were each top 20 pairings in the NHL. We don't have that without Petro. Full stop. We go from being arguably the best defensive team in the NHL to being one that is simply good by losing Petro. Unless we can bring in a top 10-15 forward with the cap space we would save from letting Petro walk, the offensive group is flat out not good enough to win the Cup without an elite defensive group. Good defensive teams don't win the Cup without an elite offense. We aren't an elite offense and unless Kyrou, Kostin and Thomas all hit their absolute ceilings we don't have the assets to be an elite offense in the near future without acquiring a top 10-15 NHL forward.

Our Cup winning identity is that we completely shut down other teams at 5 on 5 by making their entire top 9 play almost exclusively against a top 15 NHL D man. Petro and Parayko combined for 43:19 of even strength time on ice per game in the playoffs and Bortz got the remaining 9:53. That means that for 81% of all even strength ice time, other teams had to contend with a top 15 NHL D man. Factoring in usage, that meant that the opponents top 6 almost never got a shift against a non-elite D man. It was literally the backbone to our Cup-winning formula: dictate at 5 on 5 by letting our two incredible top 4 pairings do their thing. That is gone without Petro and that is not really debateable.

To make up for the loss of that insane skill advantage on D, the offense needs the type of upgrade it would only get by bringing in a truly elite forward. So how are we getting that guy? Are we heaving $11 mil AAV on max term to the biggest forward UFA next summer? If so, how is that better than giving Petro less money and max term? Are we hoping that some team is willing to completely gut our prospect pool in a trade for a 90 point forward on a non-crippling contract? I can't recall too many of those trades happening in recent years.

I can conceive the team without Petro. Every iteration of it looks like a noticeable step back. I still haven't heard a single proposal that leads me to conceiving a version of the roster that is a top 5 NHL team by letting Petro walk.

"Letting him walk" was the phrase we heard constantly about David Backes. Usually, it was "letting him walk for nothing". People thought we should pay Backes anything he asked to keep him. Armstrong didn't. And what was the result? We won the Stanley Cup a couple of season later, without him.

There are numerous comments on this forum about trading or buying out Alexander Steen. I'm not sure why Armstrong gave Steen the deal he wouldn't give Backes, but it looks bad now.

Pietrangelo is a very good player, but he didn't win the Stanley Cup all by himself. The team won, with contributions from nearly every player in the lineup. Pietrangelo wasn't a top pairing defenseman on that team in the finals. He played on the power play in the finals, and we couldn't score.

Pietrangelo has control of his own future. If he wants too much money for too many years, I would hope that Armstrong says no to that. If that weakens the team, I trust Armstrong to use the money saved to strengthen.

 

[Thallis]

"Letting him walk" was the phrase we heard constantly about David Backes. Usually, it was "letting him walk for nothing". People thought we should pay Backes anything he asked to keep him. Armstrong didn't. And what was the result? We won the Stanley Cup a couple of season later, without him.

There are numerous comments on this forum about trading or buying out Alexander Steen. I'm not sure why Armstrong gave Steen the deal he wouldn't give Backes, but it looks bad now.

Pietrangelo is a very good player, but he didn't win the Stanley Cup all by himself. The team won, with contributions from nearly every player in the lineup. Pietrangelo wasn't a top pairing defenseman on that team in the finals. He played on the power play in the finals, and we couldn't score.

Pietrangelo has control of his own future. If he wants too much money for too many years, I would hope that Armstrong says no to that. If that weakens the team, I trust Armstrong to use the money saved to strengthen.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Just wanted to say, I don’t think Steen’s contract has hurt this team. Yet. We all acknowledge he’s overpaid, but it hasn’t prevented signing someone’s extension or put the Blues over the Cap. This coming season it isn’t a concern. Next season it likely will be.

 

[Stealth JD]

Just wanted to say, I don’t think Steen’s contract has hurt this team. Yet. We all acknowledge he’s overpaid, but it hasn’t prevented signing someone’s extension or put the Blues over the Cap. This coming season it isn’t a concern. Next season it likely will be.

Yeah - i expect all of the 'bad' money to get dealt with before it costs the team good players. It won't be hard to move a guy with one-year remaining...just comes down to what Army is willing to attach to the offer.

 

[Blueston]

Just wanted to say, I don’t think Steen’s contract has hurt this team. Yet. We all acknowledge he’s overpaid, but it hasn’t prevented signing someone’s extension or put the Blues over the Cap. This coming season it isn’t a concern. Next season it likely will be.

Steen is 35 now. Watching his performance decline, the contract ideally would have ended after last year. He still has 2 years left though. As you said, hasn't hurt us yet but could put real squeeze us next year. Petro will be 30 when his extension kicks in. How many years do we think he will be at top level? I think 5 year extension is ideal. Perhaps you go 1 more year to get deal done but would sting. Anything beyond that you have to be valuing at super low $ and only put there to keep AAV down (starting with an 8) to manage cap.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Steen is 35 now. Watching his performance decline, the contract ideally would have ended after last year. He still has 2 years left though. As you said, hasn't hurt us yet but could put real squeeze us next year. Petro will be 30 when his extension kicks in. How many years do we think he will be at top level? I think 5 year extension is ideal. Perhaps you go 1 more year to get deal done but would sting. Anything beyond that you have to be valuing at super low $ and only put there to keep AAV down (starting with an 8) to manage cap.

While those projections may be spot on, we’ve consistently seen contracts that run longer into the declining years have value to Cap basement teams. If the real dollars are significantly lower than the Cap hit, and the player has star name recognition, it’s like giving money to a budget team. I have shaken my head many times at teams getting out of their Cap binds by trading ‘untradable’ Contracts. The Blues haven’t had a situation like that before, but maybe the Pietro contract becomes something like this in year 6-8. Or maybe the Cap will have risen enough that he’s simply overpaid but still fills a useful (lesser) role.

Anyway, there are still tools to part with the contract later if it becomes a negative. And if it enhances the competitive window for several years, I’d take on that future problem in exchange.

 

[TK 421]

Late to the conversation but I see this the other way: Kinda crappy to sign a new guy to the money that should be going to the captain of the first STL Stanley Cup team; really hope Army had that discussion with Petro before he did this. Blues owe nothing to Faulk; let him burn. Petro, the Blues owe him that courtesy to have the conversation. Now, if he is going to be part of the "let me test free agency" crowd, the loyalty card is gone.

Worst case scenario I choked on this morning while taking a shower: We know we can't sign Petro so to Winnipeg for their hold out: Laine. Hmmm...

I know, in division, blah, blah, blah...sorry, was cleaning the uglies when I thought of it.

No way we deal an all situations All Star dman Captain for a whiny one dimensional winger who no doubt wants waaay too much money for what he brings. That would be absolutely terrible asset management.

 

[Blueston]

While those projections may be spot on, we’ve consistently seen contracts that run longer into the declining years have value to Cap basement teams. If the real dollars are significantly lower than the Cap hit, and the player has star name recognition, it’s like giving money to a budget team. I have shaken my head many times at teams getting out of their Cap binds by trading ‘untradable’ Contracts. The Blues haven’t had a situation like that before, but maybe the Pietro contract becomes something like this in year 6-8. Or maybe the Cap will have risen enough that he’s simply overpaid but still fills a useful (lesser) role.

Anyway, there are still tools to part with the contract later if it becomes a negative. And if it enhances the competitive window for several years, I’d take on that future problem in exchange.

True, but that can be a tricky line to walk as Marleau deal illustrated.

 

[Em etah Eh]

While those projections may be spot on, we’ve consistently seen contracts that run longer into the declining years have value to Cap basement teams. If the real dollars are significantly lower than the Cap hit, and the player has star name recognition, it’s like giving money to a budget team. I have shaken my head many times at teams getting out of their Cap binds by trading ‘untradable’ Contracts. The Blues haven’t had a situation like that before, but maybe the Pietro contract becomes something like this in year 6-8. Or maybe the Cap will have risen enough that he’s simply overpaid but still fills a useful (lesser) role.

Anyway, there are still tools to part with the contract later if it becomes a negative. And if it enhances the competitive window for several years, I’d take on that future problem in exchange.

You have to wonder if the new CBA will have any changes in regards to LTIRetirement. Petro could be a candidate for that in like 7 years if he did get signed for max term. Blues really haven't had to mess with that yet...

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

True, but that can be a tricky line to walk as Marleau deal illustrated.

Marleau was not the type of contract. It was a 3 year deal where the cap hit = salary. There was no value to anyone to take it. Not comparable to what I’m describing at all.

Edit: misread CapFriendly. There was about 2M difference in salary.

But that contract was overpayment in the first season. It was never a good deal in any year of it.

If I knew the Blues could move Pietro for a 1st whenever they need to, I’d accept that and sign an 8 year deal rather than have him walk.

 

[Blueston]

Marleau was not the type of contract. It was a 3 year deal where the cap hit = salary. There was no value to anyone to take it. Not comparable to what I’m describing at all.

There aren't that many cap floor teams (and we don't know what CBA will look like 5+ years down the road either). If you are counting on someone bailing you out of bad contract down the road, just saying that sometimes it works easy like you hope and sometimes you gotta swallow bitter pill.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

There aren't that many cap floor teams (and we don't know what CBA will look like 5+ years down the road either). If you are counting on someone bailing you out of bad contract down the road, just saying that sometimes it works easy like you hope and sometimes you gotta swallow bitter pill.

I agree, it’s not a good way to plan. But for special case players, it’s worth the gamble. But there is a good reason Armstrong hasn’t given out a deal like that before.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

I don’t know why people think it will be easy to move on from Petro contract once he declines. Steen for us Backes for the Bruins should be all the warnings we need that it rarely that easy. Petro just had triplets! Even that fact notwithstanding a NMC or at the very least a robust NTC will be one of his top priorities just like it was for Steen/Backes with their last big contracts. Moving on from his contract when he is 32-35 is probably not going to happen at all and if Armstrong signs him to a 6-8 year deal even those years would be problematic with a robust NTC. You can say don’t give him one but do you really expect him to sign without one?

I was leery of a Petro contract keeping us from signing Parayko before the Faulk trade. Now I have no idea what to think. I am glad the trade gives us a better chance this year to repeat and if Petro walks Faulk should keep us competitive for the duration of our window. Armstrong said he is going to get creative so just have to trust he has a plan here.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

Is there anyway he accepts a 6 or 7 year deal to stay w/Blues? Honestly a 6 x 10mil might be the way to go. Paying top dollar for those late 30s years are always a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Brockon]

All of his comps are 8.25 or less. No reason to pay him 10. Would be huge mistake.

Again, you're hung up on the dollar number... His comps absolutely the 10% of cap range - which adding in inflation puts him at 8.5+ with term looking at the projected 84M ceiling for next year.

I gave you the dollars, term and %cap hit - look at them. You can't tell me OEL, Buff and Carlson are worlds better than AP, those are absolutely the players his agent uses to make his case. None of which are Norris winners and all command 10%+ of the cap when the deals were signed.

 

[Brockon]

Of this group, how many of them have won the Cup? Take that group and that's how much Pie should make (of this list it's a very small number). If you go under that, consider yourself golden. At some point, if you want top talent, you need to pay. Pie is one of them.

The point I was making with said list is that anyone thinking AP signs for under 8 AAV is out to lunch. He's going to be signing for ~10% of the cap, period.

The prospect of a Blues team without AP signed is not an improved roster - if he wants 10+ AAV for 5 years you pay him. Otherwise, you pay him in the 8-9 range over 7 or 8 years.

 

[Blueston]

Again, you're hung up on the dollar number... His comps absolutely the 10% of cap range - which adding in inflation puts him at 8.5+ with term looking at the projected 84M ceiling for next year.

I gave you the dollars, term and %cap hit - look at them. You can't tell me OEL, Buff and Carlson are worlds better than AP, those are absolutely the players his agent uses to make his case. None of which are Norris winners and all command 10%+ of the cap when the deals were signed.

Nobody is saying not to pay him more than 8. Saying not to pay him 10. And if go 8 years I would keep below 9.

 

[GoldenSeal]

"Letting him walk" was the phrase we heard constantly about David Backes. Usually, it was "letting him walk for nothing". People thought we should pay Backes anything he asked to keep him. Armstrong didn't. And what was the result? We won the Stanley Cup a couple of season later, without him.

There are numerous comments on this forum about trading or buying out Alexander Steen. I'm not sure why Armstrong gave Steen the deal he wouldn't give Backes, but it looks bad now.

Pietrangelo is a very good player, but he didn't win the Stanley Cup all by himself. The team won, with contributions from nearly every player in the lineup. Pietrangelo wasn't a top pairing defenseman on that team in the finals. He played on the power play in the finals, and we couldn't score.

Pietrangelo has control of his own future. If he wants too much money for too many years, I would hope that Armstrong says no to that. If that weakens the team, I trust Armstrong to use the money saved to strengthen.

I know I've said some silly things from time to time but damn...

 

[GoldenSeal]

Nobody is saying not to pay him more than 8. Saying not to pay him 10. And if go 8 years I would keep below 9.

Can you give us hard numbers on what exactly you think Pie deserves to get paid in your opinion? Your comment is kinda abstract.

Why below 9? We could go 8 years and adjust how he gets paid so it declines so when he gets to the last 3 years of his contract, he'd be very easy to move if his skills drop off the scale.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Can you give us hard numbers on what exactly you think Pie deserves to get paid in your opinion? Your comment is kinda abstract.

Why below 9? We could go 8 years and adjust how he gets paid so it declines so when he gets to the last 3 years of his contract, he'd be very easy to move if his skills drop off the scale.

Don't know if he would that easy to move. His high cap remains equal for every year of his contract. Marleau cost the Leafs a first rounder for 6.25m of dead cap, and just 3 m in cash. Your suggestion of 3 years....whoa that would be very high premium even if Blues could find a team that wanted 3 years of bad cap.

 

[Brian39]

Don't know if he would that easy to move. His high cap remains equal for every year of his contract. Marleau cost the Leafs a first rounder for 6.25m of dead cap, and just 3 m in cash. Your suggestion of 3 years....whoa that would be very high premium even if Blues could find a team that wanted 3 years of bad cap.

$4.25 mil in actual cash (including a $3 mil signing bonus). Additionally, Marleau was a 35+ contract, which limited how the receiving team could deal with him. Finally, Marleau publicly made it clear that he was only willing to actually play hockey in San Jose, so he was blocking trades to any team that didn't intend on buying him out (and taking the full cap hit since it was a 35+ contract).

Marleau's contract (and willingness to retire instead of playing anywhere but San Jose) made that situation a hell of a lot different than where we will be with Petro. But even assuming we are talking about paying an asset to move Petro, I would absolutely prefer 5-6 years of Petro and then paying a 1st round pick and another lesser asset to clear his contract over the alternative of watching him walk for nothing.