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

[Mike Liut]

If the report is true and we are offering 8x8, then he’s making a big mistake by not taking it. That’s a good offer to stay in a great market on a great team with the window being wide open for several years.

 

[Spear]

If the report is true and we are offering 8x8, then he’s making a big mistake by not taking it. That’s a good offer to stay in a great market on a great team with the window being wide open for several years.

AND the least disruptive to his family.

 

[m1a2lt]

Funny how Strickland was tweeting on Friday that... "The numbers being tossed around for Pietrangelo are significantly higher than what’s being reported".

Now he's saying that what JR reported is accurate.

Where?

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I dug into the cap hits on top D-men this morning and I've come to the conclusion that 8x8 is an extremely fair deal from a monetary perspective. Yes, Josi got an extra mil a year for his contract, however he also got paid peanuts on his bridge deal. Even with an 8x8 instead of an 8x9, AP will still out-earn Josi by a solid 10ish million over the course of his career. AP is in a similar position as Carlson was when he signed his new deal with Washington, which is also an 8x8. That year Carlson put up eye popping numbers AND won a Cup, then continued to put up eye popping numbers in the two years his deal has been running. With an 8x8 AP would be our highest paid player for easily the next 3-5 years and he has never come close to the height that Carlson has from a points production perspective. Again, I hope it works out, and I hope AP gets what he wants, but we can't have a buyout/movement proof contract during his age 37-38-39 years.

 

[Quaz]

When Petro came into the league he looked elite and like a perennial Norris Trophy candidate. Over the course of his career the league has gotten more skilled and faster. He had his career year in a contract year, and I doubt that he can duplicate it, and I give him credit for coming in 4th in the Norris race. I would say that as early as next year some of these young D-men like Heiskanen and Makar will start passing him up and pushing him farther down the list. Also he is not a great PP QB and doesn’t have an elite shot or the ability to get his shot through traffic regularly. I know the Blues had the 3rd best PP last year, but based on watching all the games I found myself frustrated with Petro running the PP. All that being said I would be happy if they can work a deal out with him to end his career here. I believe the Blues will offer a fair contract, but if he wants more than the Blues can afford to give him (like 50% of his money up front in bonuses) I think the Blues will survive and make the moves needed to continue to contend for the cup for the next 3 years.

 

[Alklha]

Where?

The TSN interview today. Strickland said that the Blues offer is in the neighbourhood of 8x8 and it’s yet to be seen if the Blues go above $8m AAV. The article from JR on Friday said that the Blues offer was believed to be in the neighbourhood of $8m when talks broke off, having risen from $7.7m.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

I dug into the cap hits on top D-men this morning and I've come to the conclusion that 8x8 is an extremely fair deal from a monetary perspective. Yes, Josi got an extra mil a year for his contract, however he also got paid peanuts on his bridge deal. Even with an 8x8 instead of an 8x9, AP will still out-earn Josi by a solid 10ish million over the course of his career. AP is in a similar position as Carlson was when he signed his new deal with Washington, which is also an 8x8. That year Carlson put up eye popping numbers AND won a Cup, then continued to put up eye popping numbers in the two years his deal has been running. With an 8x8 AP would be our highest paid player for easily the next 3-5 years and he has never come close to the height that Carlson has from a points production perspective. Again, I hope it works out, and I hope AP gets what he wants, but we can't have a buyout/movement proof contract during his age 37-38-39 years.

This is a concept that I don't understand.

Why do we care so much for what the contract will look in 5-6 years time? That's a timeframe that's way too far in the future to form any sort of prediction on where the Blues will be. Look at this team 5-6 years ago and the roster is ~80%+ different then what the team is currently icing. Then you have to predict what the cap hit percentage would be for a salary cap that you can't really predict at this current juncture. The only guarantee at this point is that the cap will be stagnate for the next 2 years, but after that it's anyone's guess. So worrying about what this contract will look like so far into the future is paranoia at this point.

 

[mk80]

 

[MissouriMook]

Based on the points @Alklha made earlier about Petro wanting to backload salary away from the first two years due to escrow concerns, I wonder if this annual structure would fly for Petro on an 8 x $8.25M deal?

SB (in $M): 5-5-4-3-3-3-3-2 ($28M total)
Salary (in $M): 1-2-5-7-7-7-5-4 ($38M total)
Total Comp (in $M): 6-7-9-10-10-10-8-6 ($66M total)

Full NMC, but a M-NTC the last two years where he can block 24 teams in year 7, then 16 teams in year 8. That’s about 42% of his compensation in signing bonus, which seems like a reasonable compromise between our typical 0% policy and the 80%-90% trend in many recent contracts. The structure should be compliant with the new CBA rules in that the lowest year is 60% of the highest year and no year-to-year change exceeds 25%.

 

[67Blues]

If the Blues offer him 8x8 and he turns it down, then I hold no ill will against Army. That is a fair contract in the current circumstances. Petro chased the money in the end.

I do enjoy Toronto fans saying he'll be closer to the grandparents in Toronto. I guess that his wife's family is from Toronto or will they uproot the entire family and move them to a new country too?

 

[MissouriMook]

When Petro came into the league he looked elite and like a perennial Norris Trophy candidate. Over the course of his career the league has gotten more skilled and faster. He had his career year in a contract year, and I doubt that he can duplicate it, and I give him credit for coming in 4th in the Norris race. I would say that as early as next year some of these young D-men like Heiskanen and Makar will start passing him up and pushing him farther down the list. Also he is not a great PP QB and doesn’t have an elite shot or the ability to get his shot through traffic regularly. I know the Blues had the 3rd best PP last year, but based on watching all the games I found myself frustrated with Petro running the PP. All that being said I would be happy if they can work a deal out with him to end his career here. I believe the Blues will offer a fair contract, but if he wants more than the Blues can afford to give him (like 50% of his money up front in bonuses) I think the Blues will survive and make the moves needed to continue to contend for the cup for the next 3 years.

Petro is not an elite PP QB but he is certainly above average. When our top unit is struggling, it is rarely on him. It is usually due to one of three things - the recipient of his pass fumbles it, the recipient of his pass doesn’t see the next play and predictably passes back to him, or the recipient of his pass makes a bad pass/shoot decision. His vision of where the puck needs to go is usually very good. My biggest knock on him is that he tends to shoot out of frustration when the other 4 guys aren’t making the next play he is seeing.

 

[Stlblue50]

When Petro came into the league he looked elite and like a perennial Norris Trophy candidate. Over the course of his career the league has gotten more skilled and faster. He had his career year in a contract year, and I doubt that he can duplicate it, and I give him credit for coming in 4th in the Norris race. I would say that as early as next year some of these young D-men like Heiskanen and Makar will start passing him up and pushing him farther down the list. Also he is not a great PP QB and doesn’t have an elite shot .

He might have had a career year as far points go but he was not good in his own end. He looked very disinterested all season in the dzone but would jump up on the play like that was his only job. It lead to a lot of points but also lead to a lot of chances the other way.

 

[Ranksu]

 

[Prosaic]

I have a few questions that I wanna put out there.

1. What was the point in prematurely extending Faulk, Scandella and even Schenn before extending Pietrangelo?

Allow me to go through each case:

Schenn:
Not gonna say a lot, good player, bad contract. His raw GAR has been declining ever since his first season here but his xGAR has remained fairly level. Given his play style and attributes as a player, I suspect his decline will hit hard and fast and the team gets probably 1-2 years of decent play before we see him get to that point. The AAV itself isn’t as much a problem as the max term. Either way, I can understand the extension even if I personally am not a fan.

Scandella:
This one doesn’t get nearly as much criticism as the Faulk extension but deserves just as much. Acquiring him as a rental? I can see why the team did it, but even then, Niko Mikkola was sitting there. Mikkola is similar archetype and yielded fantastic results in his albeit extremely small four games. Yes, you can’t concretely make conclusions about a player based on four games but before throwing draft capital down the drain could giving him a chance to play more have hurt? Why did the Blues have to rush to get Scandella? Scandella isn’t an irreplaceable player. He’s a decent in zone defender who’s defensive impact is largely mitigated by the fact he can’t move the puck because his puck skills are largely inadequate. He isn’t adept offensively or in transition and relies heavily on his partner to effectively exit the zone. Now, the real problem for me is the four year extension. He’s already 30 and historically players really fall off at 29/30 especially players who aren’t skilled. Plus, he’s been a sub replacement level player for three years prior to this past season, so your betting on a 30 year old with one above replacement season in four years to replicate that when he was so subpar before? As a rental, I can live with it. But the extension was truly mind boggling. Also, the “he’s the Bouwmeester replacement” excuse is also bogus. Why couldn’t Mikkola be the “Bouwmeester” replacement? Mikkola isn’t young, he’s 24 and historically the average NHL player peaks at 23-24. Refusing to give these opportunities to players on minor league contracts is exactly how the Blues ended up in this spot.

Faulk:
There’s a lot of slander on him and it’s truly deserved. His GAR and xGAR had been declining for 3 years before Armstrong acquired him. What’s funny is he actually yielded better underlying results this season then 2018-19. Which goes to show point totals definitely aren’t a great indicator of performance. Yes, he’s managed to put up a string of 30-35 point seasons but has largely been ineffective at 5on5 his entire career and relied on a Carolina system that was built around him. It’s no surprise that the year they finally broke through and made the playoffs was when they acquired a significantly better defensemen in Hamilton to eat some of his minutes. He comes to St. Louis where he isn’t the main guy and plummets. For a supposed offensively gifted defenseman, he really isn’t any good offensively. His shot honestly sucks too. Yes, it’s hard, but that has no impact because he can’t get it through traffic at all, unless he shoots a foot wide. He isn’t a good facilitator and his vision is lackluster. Defensively, he’s a train wreck and so behind the play he’s due for a slash, hook or tripping penalty every game. I mean he was brought in to help the PP but was so bad on it, he didn’t even last getting regular PPP minutes till January, which sums it all up. Furthermore, Blues fans on Twitter seem to think Seattle will take him with open arms but why would they? 6 years of an anchor contract? They can easily find better ways to reach the cap floor, just do an expansion simulation on CapFriendly. This is a Seattle team with the second largest analytics department in the NHL, and Faulk has been historically awful analytically. The Blues would have to pay way too much to convince Seattle management to take him, I just don’t buy that.

Scandella and Faulk combine for a 9.775M cap hit. Pietrangelo at 8.5M and Mikkola at 763K combine for 9.263M in cap space.

To continue, the COVID-19 Pandemic excuse is also extremely lousy. Because, I repeat, why pay anyone before your biggest asset? It’s like Apple deciding to invest all their R&D funding into their earbuds and leaving minimal funding for their iPhones. It doesn’t matter how good the earbuds are, they are rendered useless without the iPhone to pair with it. The iPhone is also fully functional and independent of the earbuds. Now, everyone likes earbuds with their iPhone, in fact, it’s when people buy iPhones they tend to use the earbuds a lot. Scandella and Faulk are the earbuds. Pietrangelo is the iPhone. So sure, Armstrong could’ve have predicted a global pandemic, but he could’ve put the team in a better spot to secure its core player going forward. He opted to sign everyone else first instead.

You need depth to win in this league, but if you don’t have the star power in front of the depth, your going nowhere. And I’m sorry, but the Blues without Pietrangelo aren’t going anywhere. He offers 25ish minutes ever night of elite 5 on 5 offensive play driving and solid defense.

So this leads to my second question:

Lets assume Pietrangelo walks. Now, the Blues are naturally forced to rebuild or retool barring a miracle trade that emulates the O’Rielly trade except for a defenseman. But that’s very unlikely. So, do you want the same guy who put the team in a rather terrible position to sign it’s arguably best player and consequently put them in a position to have to retool/rebuild to also run the team through said retool/rebuild?

Note, I don’t think there’s any chance he’ll lose his job.

 

[m1a2lt]

The TSN interview today. Strickland said that the Blues offer is in the neighbourhood of 8x8 and it’s yet to be seen if the Blues go above $8m AAV. The article from JR on Friday said that the Blues offer was believed to be in the neighbourhood of $8m when talks broke off, having risen from $7.7m.

Thanks

 

[execwrite1]

It's indisputable the Faulk contract was a huge mistake unless he turns his game completely around next season.

Paying the 36,37,38 year old Petro $8 million a year is not an appealing outcome. Let another team closer to a Cup now do that, not the Blues.

 

[Alklha]

If the Blues offer him 8x8 and he turns it down, then I hold no ill will against Army. That is a fair contract in the current circumstances. Petro chased the money in the end.

How much blame Armstrong gets in that situation will depend on how the negotiations played out.

If Pietrangelo wanted to wait to get a deal done? Then it's not on Armstrong.

If we believe what Pietrangelo said, and their demands last summer were reasonable? Then it's on Armstrong and the current circumstances don't really change that; Pietrangelo should have had his new deal a year ago.

If we believe that Pietrangelo did/does want to stay, then I tend to doubt that he wanted to wait. If a player wants to stay then they'll typically want the deal done as soon as possible as it offers them more protection, as if he had done his ACL this season then that would have cost him a fortune. The risk of delaying a new deal is far greater than the potential reward for a player as established as Pietrangelo.

It's interesting that Pietrangelo says that Armstrong delayed the negotiations saying that he wanted to know what the new CBA looked like before working out a deal. Yet, Faulk and Schenn got new deals before that. That would suggest to me that Armstrong was gambling that there would be significant changes to signing bonuses in the new CBA. The NHL did push for signing bonuses to be limited to 50% of the total compensation in any one year (and later just limiting it to 50% of the contract), but there was ultimately no changes made.

 

[Celtic Note]

I am fairly certain we become a Minnesota Wild very quickly if Petro leaves. I personally have no interest in that. I would rather burn it down and rebuild than to wade in the waters of mediocrity. I highly doubt that our ownership group would want to do a rebuild given how hard they have worked to make the team profitable and competitive. Here in lies my concern with becoming a version of the Wild.

 

[Stlblue50]

If the report is true and we are offering 8x8, then he’s making a big mistake by not taking it. That’s a good offer to stay in a great market on a great team with the window being wide open for several years.

Extremely good offer, even for pre covid. I just read most of the Rutherford article in the Athletic. Not surprised that Petro/agent are stooping to these kind of tactics.

If he really turned down 8x8 right now then let him walk or get a pick for his rights.

 

[67Blues]

How much blame Armstrong gets in that situation will depend on how the negotiations played out.

If Pietrangelo wanted to wait to get a deal done? Then it's not on Armstrong.

If we believe what Pietrangelo said, and their demands last summer were reasonable? Then it's on Armstrong and the current circumstances don't really change that; Pietrangelo should have had his new deal a year ago.

If we believe that Pietrangelo did/does want to stay, then I tend to doubt that he wanted to wait. If a player wants to stay then they'll typically want the deal done as soon as possible as it offers them more protection, as if he had done his ACL this season then that would have cost him a fortune. The risk of delaying a new deal is far greater than the potential reward for a player as established as Pietrangelo.

It's interesting that Pietrangelo says that Armstrong delayed the negotiations saying that he wanted to know what the new CBA looked like before working out a deal. Yet, Faulk and Schenn got new deals before that. That would suggest to me that Armstrong was gambling that there would be significant changes to signing bonuses in the new CBA. The NHL did push for signing bonuses to be limited to 50% of the total compensation in any one year (and later just limiting it to 50% of the contract), but there was ultimately no changes made.

The one wildcard in that is the involvement in ownership. We don't know if they have put an internal cap on how much Army could spend. You would have to think that they moved Allen to free up cap space in order to sign Petro, but possibly ownership wants to cut cap because they don't know how this season will play out. Could they really afford to spend to the cap if we play this season with limited fans? I have no idea myself, but it is an angle a lot of people are overlooking. I can't see most teams wild about spending guaranteed money when their revenue for the upcoming season is very much up in the air.

 

[67Blues]

I am fairly certain we become a Minnesota Wild very quickly if Petro leaves. I personally have no interest in that. I would rather burn it down and rebuild than to wade in the waters of mediocrity. I highly doubt that our ownership group would want to do a rebuild given how hard they have worked to make the team profitable and competitive. Here in lies my concern with becoming a version of the Wild.

We would be the Wild for next season, and then after that, you go into a retool. You still have a core that you can build around. That also means that they will probably part ways with Schwartz at the TDL for picks/prospects if this becomes the case.

 

[joe galiba]

mediocrity produced 25 straight years of playoff hockey, some of the most amazing games and some really interesting seasons
plus there was a lot to talk about aaannndd there was always a "chance"
when we got rid of everyone and sucked in the mid 2000's the hockey was unwatchable

 

[Thallis]

I am fairly certain we become a Minnesota Wild very quickly if Petro leaves. I personally have no interest in that. I would rather burn it down and rebuild than to wade in the waters of mediocrity. I highly doubt that our ownership group would want to do a rebuild given how hard they have worked to make the team profitable and competitive. Here in lies my concern with becoming a version of the Wild.

I totally agree, and I get the feeling Doug is the type to keep trying to make something work instead of tearing it down

 

[Celtic Note]

We would be the Wild for next season, and then after that, you go into a retool. You still have a core that you can build around. That also means that they will probably part ways with Schwartz at the TDL for picks/prospects if this becomes the case.

The problem is that by time you go to a retool and complete it, most of your core has aged. This isn’t a one move challenge, it’s a significant chunk of the roster. That is why we either need to break the bank for Petro or rebuild.

Also, the retool is very difficult when you have so little in the prospect pool. Of the teams to successfully retool and be players for the Cup, all of them have had prospects come up the ranks and fill big holes.

And while Armstrong has become strong on the buyer side of trades, I am not convinced he is very good at selling. Selling will be a critical component of retooling.

 

[Celtic Note]

mediocrity produced 25 straight years of playoff hockey, some of the most amazing games and some really interesting seasons
plus there was a lot to talk about aaannndd there was always a "chance"
when we got rid of everyone and sucked in the mid 2000's the hockey was unwatchable

And yet it yielded a Cup. Which for me is what matters.