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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nayrb

Registered User
Oct 10, 2011
122
6
Memphis
Why are we worried about Petro's play diminishing so much? Sure, a long term high dollar contract is always a risk but he doesn't play an OVERLY physical game and his mental tools have always been his biggest strength. Petro is consistently one of the better DEFENSIVE defensemen in the entire league and produces 10-15 goals a year in addition to 25-30 assists. I thought he should have been higher up in Conn Smythe voting as well.
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
"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.
You are wildly misrepresenting people's opinions about Backes. The overwhelming consensus around here (and every other place I talk about Blues hockey) was that the Blues shouldn't have given him the contract Boston did and that we were better off losing him as a UFA than giving him that deal. Myself included. I honestly can't say that you have even a vague understanding of hockey if you are suggesting that David Backes at 32 was even remotely comparable as a hockey player to Petro at 30.

This past season, Petro scored at a slightly higher rate than Backes did in his last season with the Blues (41 points in 71 games compared to 45 in 79 games for Backes). He also logged significantly more minutes and importance in the defensive zone since he did that as a D man. He also had a higher expected +/-, point share and dramatically better possession numbers. Oh right, and he played 26+ minutes a night during the Final, led the Blues in TOI per game through the playoffs, led all NHL skaters in total TOI through the playoffs and led all D men in both overall scoring and even strength scoring through the playoffs.

So I will vehemently dispute your implication that losing Petro would be even remotely comparable to losing Backes. I also vehemently disagree if you are trying to assert that he wasn't easily one of the top 5 most important contributors to the Cup win. Of course he didn't win all by himself. As any even modest hockey fan knows, no single player is able to do that. If that is your best reason not to sign him then there is no point in ever signing any player. He scored the 2nd most even strength points during a playoff run of all D men since the full season lockout 15 years ago. His 5 on 5 contribution was insanely important.
 
Last edited:

lifelonghockeyfan

Registered User
Dec 18, 2015
6,283
1,356
Lake Huron
$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.

Most premier UFAs will get a NMC or very restrictive NTC, it just won't be easy moving him. IMO the Doughty, Karlsson are going two expensive contracts...now and in the future. The Blues (and any team) should be thinking, is it wiser to spend 10m on 30 year old long term or can I get better value elsewhere? What Pietrangelo has done in the past shouldn't influence on what you think his contribution will be in the future. I just don't think there are many attractive opportunities available to Pietrangelo if the Blues don't pony up close to the most money. For Pietrangelo's sake, maybe it's just best to take less and be happy where you are, which probably means St Louis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueston

David Dennison

I'm a tariff, man.
Jul 5, 2007
5,940
1,444
Grenyarnia
While I don't think the door is completely shut on Petro returning, I do think it would be difficult to have both Schenn AND Petro return.

Even with Faulk, Petro might still be the more irreplaceable player than Schenn. We have young forwards with upside, less so with defenseman. Thomas certainly looks like he will be ready for a second line center role, Barbashev has earned a little bigger role, and Kyrou and Kostin can fill in the holes. On defense, we got nothin.
 

MissouriMook

Still just a Mook among men
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2014
7,812
8,139
While I don't think the door is completely shut on Petro returning, I do think it would be difficult to have both Schenn AND Petro return.

Even with Faulk, Petro might still be the more irreplaceable player than Schenn. We have young forwards with upside, less so with defenseman. Thomas certainly looks like he will be ready for a second line center role, Barbashev has earned a little bigger role, and Kyrou and Kostin can fill in the holes. On defense, we got nothin.
It may be oversimplifying, but I think it is fair to suggest that this point that two of the following four players will not be back in 2020-2021:

Allen, Pietrangelo, Schenn, Steen

We may see more than two of them gone, but I don't see a logical path to keeping three or four of these four players.
 

Blueston

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 4, 2016
18,700
19,283
Houston, TX
It may be oversimplifying, but I think it is fair to suggest that this point that two of the following four players will not be back in 2020-2021:

Allen, Pietrangelo, Schenn, Steen

We may see more than two of them gone, but I don't see a logical path to keeping three or four of these four players.
Think that is oversimplifying. Guys like Bozak or Perron could be dealt to open space too.
 

David Dennison

I'm a tariff, man.
Jul 5, 2007
5,940
1,444
Grenyarnia


STL sports media can't get a confirmation on meeting with Petros agent in Toronto is odd since MacKenzie confirmed it during the opening night broadcast.
 
Apr 30, 2012
21,007
5,358
St. Louis, MO
It may be oversimplifying, but I think it is fair to suggest that this point that two of the following four players will not be back in 2020-2021:

Allen, Pietrangelo, Schenn, Steen

We may see more than two of them gone, but I don't see a logical path to keeping three or four of these four players.
And the choice of which two to keep is a total slam dunk. If we want to keep Petro, we should really not have too much trouble doing it.
 

Ranksu

Crotch Academy ftw
Sponsor
Apr 28, 2014
19,670
9,302
Lapland
Can we really resign Pietro if there is questionable contracts like Allen + Steen which are hard to move?

Wouldn't it be more important to resign Pietro than Schenn?
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
Can we really resign Pietro if there is questionable contracts like Allen + Steen which are hard to move?

Wouldn't it be more important to resign Pietro than Schenn?
This has been discussed ad nuaseum, but yes. We can absolutely sign Petro and worry about moving those contracts later.

Let's go down a hypothetical rabbit hole where both are absolutely untradeable. You buy out Steen to free up $4.6 mil in cap space. Then you move Bozak (who is 100% not a hard to move contract) to free up another $5 mil. And then you're done. That's $9.6 mil, which should cover the entirety of Petro's cap hit. I don't agree that Allen's deal will be that difficult to move, but even taking your premise at face value, it is still very easy to free up the space for Petro.

You don't let Petro walk out of a stubborn refusal to buy a guy out and you don't pick Bozak over Petro. Full stop. If Petro doesn't get done, it is because we couldn't agree to terms that both sides felt were fair, not because we were concerned that we couldn't make the cap work.
 

ort

Registered User
Mar 6, 2012
1,036
1,074
I think Allen is movable, you just would get nothing in return or get a negative return.

If he plays well this year, it's totally a movable contract.
 

SIU LAW

Registered User
Apr 29, 2006
661
118


STL sports media can't get a confirmation on meeting with Petros agent in Toronto is odd since MacKenzie confirmed it during the opening night broadcast.


Army himself has confirmed the Toronto trip agent meeting more than once himself in various interviews. Not sure why local media is seemingly behind on this.
 

WeWentBlues

Registered User
May 3, 2017
2,061
1,798
This has been discussed ad nuaseum, but yes. We can absolutely sign Petro and worry about moving those contracts later.

Let's go down a hypothetical rabbit hole where both are absolutely untradeable. You buy out Steen to free up $4.6 mil in cap space. Then you move Bozak (who is 100% not a hard to move contract) to free up another $5 mil. And then you're done. That's $9.6 mil, which should cover the entirety of Petro's cap hit. I don't agree that Allen's deal will be that difficult to move, but even taking your premise at face value, it is still very easy to free up the space for Petro.

You don't let Petro walk out of a stubborn refusal to buy a guy out and you don't pick Bozak over Petro. Full stop. If Petro doesn't get done, it is because we couldn't agree to terms that both sides felt were fair, not because we were concerned that we couldn't make the cap work.
Does buying out Steen save that much space?
Per CapFriendly, his cap hit of 5.75M would be reduced to 3.42M, with a cap saving of 2.33M
 

MissouriMook

Still just a Mook among men
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2014
7,812
8,139
Does buying out Steen save that much space?
Per CapFriendly, his cap hit of 5.75M would be reduced to 3.42M, with a cap saving of 2.33M
This is true because of the fact that we are buying out a year where the actual salary is below his cap hit amount. It also gets compounded by the fact that you presumably have to add at least a league minimum salary to fill the roster spot. Leaving your savings from the buyout at about $1.6M at best.
 

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,327
Erwin, TN
I think Allen is movable, you just would get nothing in return or get a negative return.

If he plays well this year, it's totally a movable contract.
Armstrong said teams inquired about Allen in the offseason. They probably saw a cheap acquisition cost, assuming the Blues would want to move him. If he has only 1 year left and hasn’t done anything to lower his value further, he should be easy to move. Looking at a few of the goalie situations around the league, Allen could still be considered as a starter for a few teams, and definitely better than the back-ups he’s being compared with. He’s an ideal target for a tandem goalie who supports someone’s young hopefully-starter guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vladys Gumption

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,327
Erwin, TN
This is true because of the fact that we are buying out a year where the actual salary is below his cap hit amount. It also gets compounded by the fact that you presumably have to add at least a league minimum salary to fill the roster spot. Leaving your savings from the buyout at about $1.6M at best.
The Blues are more interested in the Cap hit savings than the actual dollar savings, if we’re talking about Pietro’s contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 67Blues and Alklha

MissouriMook

Still just a Mook among men
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2014
7,812
8,139
The Blues are more interested in the Cap hit savings than the actual dollar savings, if we’re talking about Pietro’s contract.
That is the cap hit savings. If you buyout his last year, his cap hit is $3,416,667 in 2020-21 and $1,166,667 in 2021-22 according to CapFriendly.

$5,750,000 current cap hit for 2020-21
($3,416,667) buyout cap hit for 2020-21
$2,333,333 in cap savings
($700,000) for roster replacement
$1,633,333 in net cap savings with replacement player over Steen's actual cap hit.

It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

Completing the similar math on Allen's contract, you would save $1,966,667 buying out Allen and having Husso in his place at $700K. The moral of the story is that contracts that pay less real dollars than cap hit in their final year(s) generally make the contract more palatable to non-cap teams to take on players, but less cap friendly (pun intended) when faced with a buyout. Something to keep in mind with these longer deals for guys like Faulk, Schenn and (potentially) Petro.
 

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,327
Erwin, TN
That is the cap hit savings. If you buyout his last year, his cap hit is $3,416,667 in 2020-21 and $1,166,667 in 2021-22 according to CapFriendly.

$5,750,000 current cap hit for 2020-21
($3,416,667) buyout cap hit for 2020-21
$2,333,333 in cap savings
($700,000) for roster replacement
$1,633,333 in net cap savings with replacement player over Steen's actual cap hit.

It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

Completing the similar math on Allen's contract, you would save $1,966,667 buying out Allen and having Husso in his place at $700K. The moral of the story is that contracts that pay less real dollars than cap hit in their final year(s) generally make the contract more palatable to non-cap teams to take on players, but less cap friendly (pun intended) when faced with a buyout. Something to keep in mind with these longer deals for guys like Faulk, Schenn and (potentially) Petro.
If you think about the monetary value of draft picks in exchange, and the attractiveness of a higher cap hit / lower salary to a cap basement team, it seems like the Blues should be able to sweeten the pot enough for someone to take Steen (including some salary retention). Its just a matter of whether he is willing to waive. If he flat out refuses, I think that's the only scenario where they'd entertain a buy-out.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Steen is well liked, and he's also a good citizen. I think he'd look pretty bad refusing to negotiate on a trade, if he's not really cracking the line-up. I just don't see the relationship deteriorating here to where they have to play hardball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MissouriMook

Blueston

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 4, 2016
18,700
19,283
Houston, TX
Perhaps Petro extension talks not going so well?

DA had interview with The Athletic that TSN summarized. Here is key passage:

""I look at a team that I view that has been good for a number of years in Boston. They have their top players that have bought into an organizational outlook and quite honestly, we have too. Unless you’re picking at No. 1 or No. 2 and you’re getting a (Connor) McDavid or (Sidney) Crosby or (Alex) Ovechkin or a (Auston) Matthews, it’s difficult to find … you can create in your own mind an $11-million player or a $12-million player, but that might not be it. Some of it is marketing, some of it is real. I just believe that our method of death by a thousand cuts is the way that you build a team if you don’t have that type of (superstar) player."

https://www.tsn.ca/st-louis-blues-g...al-is-to-have-a-lot-of-good-players-1.1378256
 

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,327
Erwin, TN
Perhaps Petro extension talks not going so well?

DA had interview with The Athletic that TSN summarized. Here is key passage:

""I look at a team that I view that has been good for a number of years in Boston. They have their top players that have bought into an organizational outlook and quite honestly, we have too. Unless you’re picking at No. 1 or No. 2 and you’re getting a (Connor) McDavid or (Sidney) Crosby or (Alex) Ovechkin or a (Auston) Matthews, it’s difficult to find … you can create in your own mind an $11-million player or a $12-million player, but that might not be it. Some of it is marketing, some of it is real. I just believe that our method of death by a thousand cuts is the way that you build a team if you don’t have that type of (superstar) player."

https://www.tsn.ca/st-louis-blues-g...al-is-to-have-a-lot-of-good-players-1.1378256
I didn't get that comment having any connection with Pietro whatsoever. The interview was given to someone in Toronto media because Armstrong was in town for the game. Elsewhere in the same interview, he talked about how the Blues team (players included) have bought into an outlook (like Boston) about having more depth and no one paid in the superstar range. He basically says (paraphrasing) that there are players that are paid superstar salaries that are not really superstar players, that its a media creation (not players like Crosby, McDavid, etc). It was pretty refreshing. But nowhere did I get a hint that he was saying anything veiled about Pietro. In fact, he led off the segment answer by saying he wasn't going to get into the Pietro situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoshFromMO

Blueston

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 4, 2016
18,700
19,283
Houston, TX
I didn't get that comment having any connection with Pietro whatsoever. The interview was given to someone in Toronto media because Armstrong was in town for the game. Elsewhere in the same interview, he talked about how the Blues team (players included) have bought into an outlook (like Boston) about having more depth and no one paid in the superstar range. He basically says (paraphrasing) that there are players that are paid superstar salaries that are not really superstar players, that its a media creation (not players like Crosby, McDavid, etc). It was pretty refreshing. But nowhere did I get a hint that he was saying anything veiled about Pietro. In fact, he led off the segment answer by saying he wasn't going to get into the Pietro situation.
This is same LeBrun interview you mentioned in another post. Knowing how Army operates, I don't see how you can read it as anything other than him saying they ain't going to pay Petro superstar money and that if Petro wants to stay that he needs to buy into this framework.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stupendous Yappi

execwrite1

Registered User
Mar 30, 2018
1,457
1,404
While none of us have ever lived in this atmosphere and can't know how rich athletes think, doesn't the fact that Petro has already made $47 million figure in to his decision?

After you've set up your great-grandchildren for life, how much more money do you really need?
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
While none of us have ever lived in this atmosphere and can't know how rich athletes think, doesn't the fact that Petro has already made $47 million figure in to his decision?

After you've set up your great-grandchildren for life, how much more money do you really need?
It's not all that difficult to blow through $50 mil. I don't get the sense that Petro is horrible with money, but there are plenty of multi, multi millionaires who piss away their fortune quickly. That $47 mil he has made in salary turns into about $20 mil after escrow, taxes, agent, lawyer, etc. He's set for life if he isn't horrible with money, but he is far from "money is never again a consideration for generations" level of wealth.

I think he will take a modest discount to stay in St. Louis, but he is far from being in a position that $10+ mil wouldn't noticeably change his life.
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
I didn't get that comment having any connection with Pietro whatsoever. The interview was given to someone in Toronto media because Armstrong was in town for the game. Elsewhere in the same interview, he talked about how the Blues team (players included) have bought into an outlook (like Boston) about having more depth and no one paid in the superstar range. He basically says (paraphrasing) that there are players that are paid superstar salaries that are not really superstar players, that its a media creation (not players like Crosby, McDavid, etc). It was pretty refreshing. But nowhere did I get a hint that he was saying anything veiled about Pietro. In fact, he led off the segment answer by saying he wasn't going to get into the Pietro situation.
I don't see how you can read it as having zero connection. It was literally his response to the question "You’ve made it clear you want to keep Alex Pietrangelo (UFA July 1) around. How do you think it’s all going to fit as far as tackling that?"

I don't see any way to interpret it other than 'we might love Petro but we aren't in the business of paying 1 guy superstar money.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueston
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->