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

[Brian39]

Being on pace for double-digit goals when the forwards in front of you are not the top offensive guys is a good thing. I don't care about the assists, the goals are a bigger driver IMO, especially since he's been able to replicate double-digit goals. The team doesn't view him as a defensive liability. He's playing the Shattenkirk role during 5v5, that doesn't mean they view him as a liability.

He is absolutely not. Shatty's lowest even strength TOI per game here was 16:31 a night. That's more than Dunn is playing in all situations this year. Dunn has never played more than 15:19 a night at even strength and is playing 14:43 a night at even strength this year.

Berube is currently playing Dunn 1:48 a night less than Shatty's most sheltered season as a Blue. His 5 on 5 role is drastically less than Shatty's was here.

 

[Blueston]

Shattenkirk got the bulk of the PP time. Once Parayko was here, Shattenkirk was 3rd pair that played up with Petro when we needed offense. Thought it was clear what I meant.

Shattenkirk's minutes did drop when Parayko established himself, true, but he still played much more than Dunn. It was more of a Faulk situation where they were trying to juggle minutes among 3RD. Dunn is a LD where we have never had more than 1 top player during his time here and he still gets stuck on 3rd pair because coaching staff doesn't trust him. You can argue he should be trusted, should get more minutes, will get better, and all those positions are not without merit. But he is played as if he is as sheltered 3rd pair defenseman with offensive skill that gets a bit more ice time in offensive situations. I would love if he becomes Shattenkirk, but that is more of a wish than a reality.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Petterson was coming off a 25 point season and DeAngelo 30. Both played more minutes per night with the extending club. And both were drafted higher than Dunn, fwiw. Honestly, I'd rather have either of them over Dunn.

They both had just 1 season compared to 3 productive years. Dunn averaged more time in his 1st 2 seasons than Pettersson did in his 1 productive season. DeAngelo was a headcase that finally figured it out, but he was still a risky bet, that's why he got just 1 year. Dunn's 3 seasons of productive hockey makes him worth more than them at the time IMO.

We don't have to agree, but at least discussing this is more productive.

 

[bleedblue1223]

He is absolutely not. Shatty's lowest even strength TOI per game here was 16:31 a night. That's more than Dunn is playing in all situations this year. Dunn has never played more than 15:19 a night at even strength and is playing 14:43 a night at even strength this year.

Berube is currently playing Dunn 1:48 a night less than Shatty's most sheltered season as a Blue. His 5 on 5 role is drastically less than Shatty's was here.

3rd pair and up when offense is needed. Great, glad we cleared that up.

 

[bleedblue1223]

His comps also all signed for 3+ years... Regardless if you're lumping in Girard (5AAV, 7 years), Pettersson (4.025 AAV, 5 years), Werenski (5AAV, 3 years) or Chabot (8AAV, 8 years). I mean, I'm not sure who you consider to be his comparables - because there aren't an abundance of offensive dmen who signed extensions recently...

Of the recent extensions, with the exception of Girard, all of them play either considerably more minutes (Werenski and Chabot) or play much heavier defensive minutes (Pettersson, Morrissey, Andersson, Sanheim, etc) with a more complete game.

I don't see Dunn having earned a 3-4.5 AAV deal, unless he's willing to sign for 5+ years. He's more likely getting 2-3 on a 2/3 year deal, giving him the sample size to prove he's worth it - I'd rather sign him long term, but I don't see that happening unless Petro walks.

That's why I put a pretty wide range on his comps. Short-term is 3ish, long-term is 4.5ish. I also didn't bring up many of these names because they aren't comps IMO. Not sure why you mention Werenski or Chabot.

 

[Blueston]

They both had just 1 season compared to 3 productive years. Dunn averaged more time in his 1st 2 seasons than Pettersson did in his 1 productive season. DeAngelo was a headcase that finally figured it out, but he was still a risky bet, that's why he got just 1 year. Dunn's 3 seasons of productive hockey makes him worth more than them at the time IMO.

We don't have to agree, but at least discussing this is more productive.

Dunn had more track record which makes his inability to seize role more glaring. At what point is he expected to actually consistently be a good player and not just show flashes? Is that before or after he gets paid big bucks?

And Petterson had maybe less overall icetime but more icetime in Pitt last year than Dunn has had, which is I think the relevant icetime bc Pens were club that was signing him.

 

[Brian39]

3rd pair and up when offense is needed. Great, glad we cleared that up.

So he is squarely a bottom pairing D man and not comparable to guys who play in all situations. And he also is trusted in even fewer defensive situations than most guys who fit that description. Great, glad we cleared that up.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Dunn had more track record which makes his inability to seize role more glaring. At what point is he expected to actually consistently be a good player and not just show flashes? Is that before or after he gets paid big bucks?

It means his less risky. Remember when we gave Allen and Lehtera deals before they proved what they could consistently bring? That's why those players didn't get long-term deals or for more money.

I don't understand where this narrative has come from that he hasn't been a consistently good player.

 

[bleedblue1223]

So he is squarely a bottom pairing D man and not comparable to guys who play in all situations. And he also is trusted in even fewer defensive situations than most guys who fit that description. Great, glad we cleared that up.

And again, we can go to Dumba, which would translate to just under 3 million. Dunn was more productive in a similar role. Dunn also had more years of productivity.

 

[Brockon]

That's why I put a pretty wide range on his comps. Short-term is 3ish, long-term is 4.5ish. I also didn't bring up many of these names because they aren't comps IMO. Not sure why you mention Werenski or Chabot.

Largely because the only player I view as a remote comparable to Dunn is Sam Girard, but he still plays a more complete game and more minutes than Dunn.

Chabot and Werenski play significant minutes, but more offensive roles than most other Dmen having signed extensions in the past 2 years. That's why I felt the need to include them, despite viewing Dunn as a lesser player than either of them.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Largely because the only player I view as a remote comparable to Dunn is Sam Girard, but he still plays a more complete game and more minutes than Dunn.

Chabot and Werenski play significant minutes, but more offensive roles than most other Dmen having signed extensions in the past 2 years. That's why I felt the need to include them, despite viewing Dunn as a lesser player than either of them.

Fair enough. There aren't that many players that are really identical to Dunn, a big reason is players like Dunn on worse teams just get put in the top 4, regardless of defensive play. It's rare to see someone with production of Dunn's with minutes like Dunn. Dumba might be one of the better comps in recent years, since he was used similarly and both are more goal-scorers than assist collectors.

 

[Brian39]

And again, we can go to Dumba, which would translate to just under 3 million. Dunn was more productive in a similar role. Dunn also had more years of productivity.

And that was a good contract for Minnesota to sign since they very clearly intended to graduate him into the top 4. As indicated by burning the 7th overall pick on him, getting him into the NHL at 19, burning through his ELC by the time he was 21 instead of 23 and bumping his ice time to 18:30 a night in the final 30 games of the season before they gave him the contract. Everything about his deployment prior to getting his bridge demonstrated improvement and growth into a top 4 D man. Minnesota actually used him as a top 4 D man down the stretch and then deployed him as a top 4 D man the very next year.

Berube has been relying on Dunn less and less as this season has progressed. In his last 20 games Dunn has played 16:04 a night. He's down to 15:57 in his last 10. There is zero indication that Dunn is building confidence within the organization and many indications that he is falling out of favor. He has seen a sharp drop in ice time from last season to this season and a reduction in usage from that reduction as the season goes on. Dunn was not able to expand his role when J-Bo went down. The next night, Gunnar got 20 minutes of ice time while Dunn remained 5th with 15:26. The next night, Faulk was a turnstile and still got almost a minute more than Dunn who was again 5th among Blues D. Dunn was 4th among D the next night, but demoted again after that finishing 5th among D behind Gunnar. And then we traded for Scandella who was promptly superglued to Parayko and extended for 4 years after just 11 games. This is not me saying that Dunn should be valued this way. This is me saying that it is clear that this is how the organization values him. Absolutely nothing about Dunn's role under Berube suggests that the intention is to utilize him in the top 4 next year.

Minnesota bought a guy that they very obviously intended to slide into their top 4 with that contract. I think Dunn's actual value on a 2 year deal should be about $2.5M. I don't think he is the talent Dumba was seen as at the time, I don't think he is as complete as the similarly situated guys who got around $3M, but he is a good player for sure. But unlike the Wild with Dumba, the Blues aren't looking to buy a Dunn to slide him into the top 4 and shouldn't be spending money like they are. Given our roster and Berube's clear view of Dunn, his value to the franchise is to be a well-above-replacement 3rd pairing guy for 1 or 2 years to bridge the gap to Perunovich.

I give the take-it-or-leave-it $1.5M AAV bridge because that is what the Blues can afford to give him while extending Petro at around $8.5M and only moving Bozak/Allen/Gunnar with a touch of salary retained. That number is based on necessity. If we don't have to retain salary? Great, I'm happy to up the offer. But if $1.5 is all we can spend without moving more, then that's the offer. If he gets an offer sheet, then we look into moving more out in order to match. But I'm not committing to that until I have to. All of the relevant downsides to lowballing him exist if we offer him fair value, so I wouldn't offer fair value.

We are making similar but different points and I think we agree more than it seems. You are talking about what he should get and I'm talking about what I would offer him as the Blues. My point is that I'm happy to lowball and take the risk that someone offers him what he is worth in an offer sheet, because there is almost no team risk to an offer sheet that isn't also the consequence of offering him his fair value.

 

[bleedblue1223]

At least you say his value is around $2.5M. We can leave this dumb discussion at that.

 

[Brian39]

At least you say his value is around $2.5M. We can leave this dumb discussion at that.

And if Petro is a Blue in 2020/21 Dunn should not be paid that value unless he gets an offer sheet.

 

[Ranksu]

 

[Mike Liut]

I’d feel pretty confident with Parayko as the #1 RD. Then we could lock up Dunn, Schwartz and eventually Parayko to long term deals. We’d still be a top 5 team in the nhl. Then you factor in the emergence of Thomas and a healthy Tarasenko along with Kyrou and Kostin. I’m not worried.

 

[Mike Liut]

I wish the nhl had some type of franchise tag for UFA’s. I hate seeing players walk with no compensation.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I wish the nhl had some type of franchise tag for UFA’s. I hate seeing players walk with no compensation.

I hate the franchise tag, but I think they should do something the other leagues do and add compensatory picks. Maybe not force teams to lose a pick, but add picks to the back end of the 2nd round and 3rd rounds. Maybe you could include the beginning of 2nd or end of 1st for free agents above a certain value.

 

[Ranksu]

Be a captain of team who win franchise first Stanley Cup and next season you will walk away. I guess that is Bluesy way of how things goes.

 

[Brian39]

I wish the nhl had some type of franchise tag for UFA’s. I hate seeing players walk with no compensation.

NHL teams hold a player's rights for at least 7 years after they are drafted. Longer if the player doesn't make the NHL immediately. During this time, NTC and NMCs are prohibited from being part of a player's contract, so the team can move the player at any time. That's plenty of time to ensure that they get something in return if they want to move on from the player. We got 10 years of service from Petro before he ever had a chance to hit UFA (excluding his 2 brief stints before being sent back to junior). We could have traded him after 7 full NHL seasons before his NTC kicked in if we were worried about losing him for nothing.

The NHL already has the most restrictive system in regards to player movement and contract freedom out of the major pro sports. We don't need to tack on more restrictions to ensure teams get more than the near-decade of service the get from drafting a player.

 

[bleedblue1223]

NHL teams hold a player's rights for at least 7 years after they are drafted. Longer if the player doesn't make the NHL immediately. During this time, NTC and NMCs are prohibited from being part of a player's contract, so the team can move the player at any time. That's plenty of time to either ensure that they get something in return if they want to move on from the player. We got 10 years of service from Petro before he ever had a chance to hit UFA (excluding his 2 brief stints before being sent back to junior). We could have traded him after 7 full NHL seasons before his NTC kicked in if we were worried about losing him for nothing.

The NHL already has the most restrictive system in regards to player movement and contract freedom out of the major pro sports. We don't need to tack on more restrictions to ensure teams get more than the near-decade of service the get from drafting a player.

I wouldn't say it's the most restrictive. It takes a long time for MLB players to hit free agency, especially since a lot to reach the majors until later in their career, and they tend to get way more underpaid in early years. In NFL you have franchise tags and non-guaranteed contracts. Each have pros and cons. NFL is probably the worst for players since the average career length tends to be a lot shorter, and years of peak performance for certain positions is a lot shorter.

 

[Brian39]

I wouldn't say it's the most restrictive. It takes a long time for MLB players to hit free agency, especially since a lot to reach the majors until later in their career, and they tend to get way more underpaid in early years. In NFL you have franchise tags and non-guaranteed contracts. Each have pros and cons. NFL is probably the worst for players since the average career length tends to be a lot shorter, and years of peak performance for certain positions is a lot shorter.

While the NFL has a franchise tag, players reach unrestricted free agency much faster than they do in the NHL. It takes 4 accrued seasons to get to unrestricted free agency in the NFL (where the franchise tag is relevant) vs 7 years in the NHL (or turning 27). For example, Le'Veon Bell was just 26 years old when the Steelers franchise tagged him for the 2nd time. He would have still been an RFA in the NHL. The NHL's RFA system certainly isn't as lucrative as a franchise tag where the player's new salary is at least the average of the top 5 paid players at his position in the entire league. The vast majority of NFL players don't get franchise tagged and reach pure UFA much quicker than NHL players. The ones who do get franchise tagged get a much higher salary (in raw numbers and relative to their peers) than NHL players get as RFAs. Dak Prescott would also not be a UFA in the NHL yet. Rather than getting a 1 year contract offer that would make him the 5th highest paid player in the league, he would be eligible for arbitration and offer sheets and almost certainly wouldn't make that kind of money.

Overall, there are tons of player-unfriendly components of NFL contracts and the lack of guaranteed money is a huge issue for them. That is a huge advantage of NHL contracts, but I wasn't comparing contracts overall, I was just talking about restrictions on player movement and contractual freedom. Compared to the NFL, NHL teams own the rights of their draft picks much more than NFL teams do. NFL players get the opportunity to play where they want and/or reach the top of the financial mountain much quicker than NHL players.

MLB is a more complicated beast and I can agree that the lines are blurry in regards to which athletes have more contractual rights between MLB and NHL players. But I give the edge to MLB players because while it takes about the same amount of time to get to unrestricted free agency, the terms of restricted free agency are a bit better. Qualifying offers in the MLB are more lucrative (based on salaries of top 120 paid players vs a slight pay bump from the individual's salary) and the compensatory picks aren't as punitive to the offering teams so "offer sheets" aren't as discouraged as they are in the NHL. But you are absolutely correct about it taking players longer to start accruing seasons, so I could buy that the MLB is more restrictive.

The NBA is unquestionably more favorable to players than the NHL.

 

[bleedblue1223]

While the NFL has a franchise tag, players reach unrestricted free agency much faster than they do in the NHL. It takes 4 accrued seasons to get to unrestricted free agency in the NFL (where the franchise tag is relevant) vs 7 years in the NHL (or turning 27). For example, Le'Veon Bell was just 26 years old when the Steelers franchise tagged him for the 2nd time. He would have still been an RFA in the NHL. The NHL's RFA system certainly isn't as lucrative as a franchise tag where the player's new salary is at least the average of the top 5 paid players at his position in the entire league. The vast majority of NFL players don't get franchise tagged and reach pure UFA much quicker than NHL players. The ones who do get franchise tagged get a much higher salary (in raw numbers and relative to their peers) than NHL players get as RFAs. Dak Prescott would also not be a UFA in the NHL yet. Rather than getting a 1 year contract offer that would make him the 5th highest paid player in the league, he would be eligible for arbitration and offer sheets and almost certainly wouldn't make that kind of money.

Overall, there are tons of player-unfriendly components of NFL contracts and the lack of guaranteed money is a huge issue for them. That is a huge advantage of NHL contracts, but I wasn't comparing contracts overall, I was just talking about restrictions on player movement and contractual freedom. Compared to the NFL, NHL teams own the rights of their draft picks much more than NFL teams do. NFL players get the opportunity to play where they want and/or reach the top of the financial mountain much quicker than NHL players.

MLB is a more complicated beast and I can agree that the lines are blurry in regards to which athletes have more contractual rights between MLB and NHL players. But I give the edge to MLB players because while it takes about the same amount of time to get to unrestricted free agency, the terms of restricted free agency are a bit better. Qualifying offers in the MLB are more lucrative (based on salaries of top 120 paid players vs a slight pay bump from the individual's salary) and the compensatory picks aren't as punitive to the offering teams so "offer sheets" aren't as discouraged as they are in the NHL. But you are absolutely correct about it taking players longer to start accruing seasons, so I could buy that the MLB is more restrictive.

The NBA is unquestionably more favorable to players than the NHL.

I'm just saying it's a bit more nuanced. While technically players in the NFL have more freedom to move around, majority of the players tend to benefit more financially relative to the financial success of each league for factors outside of the restrictiveness of moving around. Unless you are a QB in the NFL, you better do all you can to get money up front.

That's why I think franchise tags would be bad for NHL, but I could see the argument for compensation picks, and don't set it up like baseball, which also hurts certain tiers of players.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I hate the franchise tag, but I think they should do something the other leagues do and add compensatory picks. Maybe not force teams to lose a pick, but add picks to the back end of the 2nd round and 3rd rounds. Maybe you could include the beginning of 2nd or end of 1st for free agents above a certain value.

This is precisely what the NHL used to do but got rid of it as a part of the 2005 CBA.

 

[Brian39]

I'm just saying it's a bit more nuanced. While technically players in the NFL have more freedom to move around, majority of the players tend to benefit more financially relative to the financial success of each league for factors outside of the restrictiveness of moving around. Unless you are a QB in the NFL, you better do all you can to get money up front.

That's why I think franchise tags would be bad for NHL, but I could see the argument for compensation picks, and don't set it up like baseball, which also hurts certain tiers of players.

I get what your saying. FWIW I hate the contract system in the NFL and I hate the franchise tag.

I just hate the argument of compensation picks for UFAs. The NHL already has compensation picks. That's essentially what differentiates RFAs to UFAs (compensation picks + the right of first refusal). At some point, players need to have complete freedom to be employed where they want to be employed. I don't think it is at all unreasonable for Petro to say "you drafted me 12 years ago and including playoffs I gave you 841 games of service under contracts signed while you had complete control of my employment future."

The Blues got plenty of value from our 4th overall pick in 2008. If we part ways after this season, there is no need for the league to give us another draft pick because we weren't willing to offer Petro terms good enough for him to stay. That devalues 2nd round picks by sandwiching a number of "extra" picks at the end of the 1st round and it even further stifles the trade market by rewarding teams for holding on to players on expiring deals instead of trading them. Why trade a rental for a 1st when you can get a 1st simply by letting them walk? I doubt the Stastny or Shatty trades happen if we would have gotten a compensatory 1st at the end of the year by letting them walk.