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

[Klank Loves You]

You’d go 8 yrs 72 million on a 30 yr old defender?

Easy when it comes to Pie. The window is now. We are looking to compete now. All that matters is the next 3 years. I don't give a f*** if we are bottom feeders in 2026 if we have another cup or two. It's fun to dream about a dynasty, yet foolish to do so in a salary cap league.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Where is Roseanne Roseannadanna when you need her to say: "Oooops! Never mind!"????

Now THAT is funny!

gotta love Gilda Radner

 

[Ranksu]

You’d go 8 yrs 72 million on a 30 yr old defender?

You would go Justin f***ing Faulk 28-year old pile of shit 7-years x 6.5mill.$?

 

[simon IC]

You would go Justin f***ing Faulk 28-year old pile of shit 7-years x 6.5mill.$?

The Faulk extension is one of the biggest mistakes of Armstrong's career. It has been noted by a few posters that Armstrong is not above realizing his mistakes and correcting them. I am hoping that our GM has a plan on moving Faulk's contract, even if it means we pay to do so.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

You’d go 8 yrs 72 million on a 30 yr old defender?

When that 30 year old defenseman is the #1 defenseman on the team and has been consistently considered a top-10 defenseman for the majority of his career, then yes.

 

[Mike Liut]

When that 30 year old defenseman is the #1 defenseman on the team and has been consistently considered a top-10 defenseman for the majority of his career, then yes.

I’m not disagreeing, but I can understand why Army could possibly be reluctant with the term and dollar amount when you have Parayko fully capable of taking that spot over.

 

[Ranksu]

I’m not disagreeing, but I can understand why Army could possibly be reluctant with the term and dollar amount when you have Parayko fully capable of taking that spot over.

There is difference of being real stanley cup contender vs. bubble team. Not having Pietro and Parayko as a one two punch is critical.

We have now world's best top6, few millions doesn't count in bigger picture when you might get another Cup and what kind of money that will bring.

 

[Mike Liut]

There is difference of being real stanley cup contender vs. bubble team. Not having Pietro and Parayko as a one two punch is critical.

We have now world's best top6, few millions doesn't count in bigger picture when you might get another Cup and what kind of money that will bring.

You aren’t wrong

 

[Bluesnatic27]

I’m not disagreeing, but I can understand why Army could possibly be reluctant with the term and dollar amount when you have Parayko fully capable of taking that spot over.

That's not the question you asked.

You asked if we would sign Pietrangelo to that specific contract (technically you didn't but I'm going to define it as such because calling Pietro "a 30 year old" is like asking a similar question for Thomas and calling him "just some teenager"). That contract isn't outrageous in the slightest for someone of Pietrangelo's talents. It's irrelevant if Parayko could hypothetically take over Pietrangelo's spot because the crux of the issue is if the contract being questioned is unfitting of Pietrangelo and his ability. If he were demanding McDavid money, then no one would be saying to sign him.

 

[Ranksu]

You aren’t wrong

You are delusional if you rather take #1 Parayko #2 Faulk vs. #1 Pietro #2 Parayko what bring to city Stanley Cup.

 

[Mike Liut]

You are delusional if you rather take #1 Parayko #2 Faulk vs. #1 Pietro #2 Parayko what bring to city Stanley Cup.

*scratches head*


Read my reply slower

 

[Ranksu]

*scratches head*


Read my reply slower

my bad, sorry.

 

[Brian39]

You’d go 8 yrs 72 million on a 30 yr old defender?

Absolutely. The window exists right now and Petro's effectiveness curve is nearly perfectly aligned with ROR and Tarasenko's. My response to this is very, very long, so I broke it out into 2 comments. The first addresses just how hard it is to be a legit contender for 10 years straight. The second addresses how our team is currently structured and whether it would be feasible to keep our window open for 10 years straight.

Here is the TLDR: It is nearly impossible to be a contender for 10 straight years in the NHL. Other than the Crosby/Malkin Penguins, there isn't a team in the cap era who has successfully done it. The 2 teams who came closest besides the Pens accomplished their success with benefits this team doesn't have. Chicago had 2 franchise forwards who were 20 when the window opened AND benefited from two 10+ year contracts to veterans that saved millions in cap space each year. Washington relied on this generation's greatest goal scorer on a 13 year deal. Our window is opening with our franchise player's being significantly older and less elite than these teams. It is unrealistic to expect a 10 year window as contenders. At some point by 2028, we will need to begin a retool/rebuild. Extending Petro means that process is very likely years 6-8 of his contract (2026 and beyond). Letting him walk now weakens our immediate chances and given the makeup of our franchise likely means that the retool/rebuild begins in 2023 when ROR and Tank hit UFA. Pushing the rebuild/retool to 2026 likely means that it is a more painful rebuild whereas doing it in 2023 means it is probably a retool. However, it will be much harder to win another Cup between 2021-2023 without Petro than with him and the success of a 2023 retool relies on internal options effectively replacing ROR, Tarasenko, and Petro. The effectiveness of a 2023 retool assumes Parayko is willing to buy into extending with a team who is very clearly about to go through a retool.

Part 1: How realistic is it to be a true contender for a decade?

There is no precedent in the cap era of a team structured like the Blues keeping a window open from last year until 2028 (the completion of an 8 year Petro contract). The Pens kept a window open for a decade and 3 other teams came close (Chicago, Boston, Washington):

Chicago: For the sake of argument, let's start their window in 2008/09 when they made the WCF and say it was open until 2016/17 when they won the Central and got swept in round 1 (I think this is generous, but it is reasonable). That's a 9 year window with the benefit of 2 contracts that saved massive cap space due to extra years that are no longer legal. They won 3 Cups in years 2-7 of the window and haven't won a playoff series since. More importantly, 2 of the 3 franchise forwards were 20 years old at the start of the window. They failed to have a decade long window even with a window opening much more favorable than we have (younger stars and 2 older stars locked up on hugely cap friendly deals that are no longer available). The Seabrook extension was bad the moment it was signed, but it is not the difference between them becoming an objectively bad team and remaining a Cup contender. They had an amazing 7 year window that was accomplished in no small part by pushing the bill to year 8.

Boston: Their window starts with their Cup win in 2010/11. Before that they were 3rd in the division (91 point season) and lost in round 2 so I'm not willing to say the window opened prior to 2010/11. They won a Cup in 2011, made the Final in 2013, won a President's trophy in 2014 and made the Final again in 2019. However, they missed the playoffs in 2015 and 2016. In 2017, they made the playoffs with 95 points and lost in round 1. They failed to remain a contender for 10 years. They had a 3 year retool/rebuild after a fantastic 4 year window and reopened a new window in 2018.

Washington: Their window opened in 2008/09 when they won the Southeast with their first 100+ point season of the Ovechkin era. They are in the midst of what is arguably an 11 year window as contenders, winning 3 President's Trophies, compiling eight 100+ point seasons and winning 1 Cup. But I would argue that they weren't a contender this entire time. First, they haven't made it out of the 2nd round in any season except their Cup win. But more damaging is that they had a 3 year window in the middle that was decidedly mediocre. These 3 seasons are the only 3 seasons since their window opened where they failed to hit 100 points. In 2012, they were 7th in the East with 92 points and lost in round 2 of the playoffs. In 2013, they won a terrible Southeast division with 57 points (97 point pace), but were 5th in the East and 10th in the NHL. They lost in the opening round of the playoffs. In 2014, they missed the playoffs completely with 90 points. This wasn't a full-blown rebuild, but it was squarely a retool where they weren't actual contenders.

Pittsburgh: They have arguably had an open window for 12 years and counting now. They are the only franchise in the league that I believe has successfully kept a Cup window open for a decade. They did it squarely on the backs of a generational player and an elite player who both started their careers at nearly the same time. The Blues don't have any player as good or with the potential to become as good as Malkin, much less a Crosby to go with it. There have been 6 instances in the cap era of a Blues player hitting the 70 point mark. Malkin has hit the 70 point mark 11 times in that same window. The Blues just simply don't have the horses to follow the Penguins model to try and keep a window open 10+ years. You can absorb a hell of a lot of cap casualties and roster turnover when you have a 100 point player riding shotgun to the best player of his generation. I love this team, but we don't have either.

Best case scenario (barring absurdly good luck with draft picks that haven't taken place yet), we should have one of two goals:

1: Keep the window open for 5 more years (not counting this one) by pushing the bill to 2026 like the Hawks did. Try to win as many Cups as possible during this stretch by going absolutely all-in with little-to-no regard for 2026 and beyond. From the evidence we have, this is as long as you can keep a window open in a cap league without a generational player.

2: Keep the window open a few more years, retool and then hope for another window. With ROR/Tarasenko both hitting UFA in 2023, it is clear that the retool would begin that summer (or potentially 2022/23 if you want to trade ROR for futures to kick it off). I will discuss these options in Part 2.

 

[Brian39]

Part 2: Which goal should the Blues have and what are the consequences of an 8 year Petro extension to those goals?

I think everyone agrees that a 5 year contract for Petro would be amazing. A 5 year deal at a non-team crippling AAV would be arguably the biggest discount in the history of the game, but it would be awesome. I think we all agree that everyone would want Petro on a reasonable AAV for 5 years. So when we are talking about the downsides of an 8 year, $9M AAV extension, we are talking about years 6-8. What are the downsides to that contract within each of the realistic goals the Blues have?

Goal 1: Go all-in to win as many Cups as we can right now.

This extension is a no-brainer if you are saying "let's try and win as many as we can in a 7 year window as true contenders." We will be on year 3 of that window when the extension kicks in. Years 6-8 of a Petro extension would all take place in a period of time that no team but the Pittsburgh Crosby/Malkins have been able to truly keep a window open.

Do what it takes to make the cap work next year by shedding salary and commit to the window being now until 2025. That means you start working on a big-money Parayko extension the day you are allowed to and it means any trade of futures is with an eye on retaining some good ELC players through 2025. It means that when ROR/Tarasenko come due in 2023 you work on extending one or both of them on a contract that creates a team-friendly AAV by giving years that are going to hurt in 2026 and beyond. Accept that you are doing a rebuild in the back half of the decade in order to win as much as you can now (unless you get lucky and Petro ages fantastically). I'd lean towards extending ROR and letting Tarasenko walk, but a lot can change by 2023. Maybe you can fit both because our prospects didn't earn the raises we thought they would. Regardless, you don't need to make the decision now. That's your problem in 2022 and you will have way more data to make the right choice at that point. What is important to accept is that you will be making that decision with an eye towards keeping your window open for just a few more years. Under this goal, extensions for a 32 year old ROR and 31 year old Tarasenko will come with an understanding that we are looking to maximize our chances from 2023-2026 without as much concern for 2026+.

Goal 2: Keep the window open a few more years, retool and then hope for another window.

Given ROR and Tarasenko both hitting UFA in 2023, that is the clear time when you would need to retool under this plan. After this season, we have ROR and Tarasenko under contract for 3 more years and then they simultaneously hit UFA as 31 and 32 year olds (ROR is 10 months older than Tarasenko). If you are worried about 2026 (which is year 6 of a would-be Petro extension), then you absolutely shouldn't extend ROR or Tarasenko when 2023 gets here. ROR will be 35 and Tarasenko will be 34 at the start of the 2026 season and both will have a birthday during the season. They will be squarely on the decline when a would-be Petro extension starts to become troubling/painful. They will each require well over $10M AAV unless you are fine with them sitting on your roster with a full NMC when they are 37+. If you let Petro walk over a concern about him at 36, keeping ROR and Tarasenko beyond their mid-30s should be an absolute non-starter.

So here are the possible situations if your goal is to retool in the middle of 2 legit windows:

Goal 2A: you cave and give Petro $9M AAV by 8 years this summer. Now in 2023, you pretty much have to let ROR and Tarasenko walk. If you don't, then you have actually embraced goal 1 and are going all-in with absolutely zero regard for 2026 and beyond. Hopefully we won another Cup or two between now and then. Assuming you retain Parayko, you are now entering a Boston-like retool with an aging Petro who should be able to at least contribute when the team is ready again plus a stud in Parayko who will still be in his prime. You have Schenn in the fold to contribute and at this point you are focused on surrounding Thomas and whatever other young prospects have emerged with enough talent to stay competitive. But losing ROR and Tarasenko means that you aren't a true contender and you can focus on 2024 and beyond. Hopefully, by 2025/26 you have supplemented the core and are ready to truly contend for the Cup. The downside is that by now, Petro's age is starting to show and window #2 needs to exist in a world where Petro is just a regular top 4 guy instead of a true stud. It is doable if things break right.

Goal 2B: you let Petro walk now because you want the window to be open in 2026 and beyond. When 2023 gets here, you can probably justify keeping one of ROR/Tarasenko, but certainly not both. Keeping both means tying up somewhere around $20M into two mid-late 30s forwards during the time period you decided a mid-late 30s Petro was too much of an anchor to contend. It makes no sense to weaken the current window by letting Petro walk AND THEN give out 2 contracts in 2023 to guys who will act as the anchor you were trying to avoid for window #2. If you commit to Petro walking now, you need to commit to at least one of ROR and Tarasenko also being gone in the summer of 2023. In this scenario, Window #2 is going to require a lot of luck/development from guys who aren't currently in the organization and won't be for another few years. There is absolutely zero guarantee that this group gets even close to the current group, even though your moves have successfully freed up the cap space to keep that group together if they do reach that peak. For me, this is a foolish plan. It makes 2021-2023 an objectively weaker team than we can assemble by giving Petro an 8 year deal. It forces us to close a window earlier than an "all-in now" plan and because Window #2 is several years away, you can't even point to prospects currently in the organization as the guys who will make up the core. Put bluntly, letting Petro walk in order to worry about 2025 and beyond merely gives you cap space that will only theoretically be put to good use. And it is done at the expense of drastically weakening a genuine contender. Planning for a "window-retool-window" by weakening your existing roster makes no sense to me.

If you give Petro an 8 year deal, the next 3 years (after this season) are unquestionably a Cup window. You extend that window by another year or two if you are willing to extend one of ROR or Tarasenko in 2023 at the expense of 2026 and beyond (years 6-8 of a Petro extension). If you're not willing to do that, you retool in 2023/24 and 2024/25 and hope that Petro is still a legit top 4 D man at 36 when the retool is complete. Personally, I go all-in to be the best team I can from now until 2025, but either option with Petro is more appealing than trying to manage 6 contending years out of the next 8 without Petro. Barring absolutely insane luck, we're going to have to retool or rebuild at some point in the next 8 years. Let's be as good as we can now and go through that in years 6-8.

Keeping Petro delays the rebuild. It likely makes that rebuild last a little longer or be a little more painful than the retool would be if we let him walk. But it also greatly improves our odds of winning another Cup (or two) while the window is open compared to the total window duration on either end of the retool. The last 15 months of hockey gave us the best Blues team in franchise history. We have had a hell of a lot of great players come through here and we have never had a better team than the one we have gotten to watch from January 1, 2019 to March 12, 2020. Depending on what your priorities are, we can keep the entire core together for next year and the year after. If you want to shift the core towards some of the current prospects and bridge guys (Thomas, Kyrou, Dunn, Sunny, Mikkola, etc), then you can accomplish that simply by removing 1 core guy (or Faulk) for the 2021/22 season. I genuinely don't understand not trying to win as many as we can with this group due to concerns about Petro in 2026-2028.

 

[Brian39]

Surprise Part 3!!!!!! Way-too-distant roster predictions!!!!!

I mentioned above how we can keep the band together for a couple more years. We have exhaustively discussed what needs to happen to fit Petro in for 2020/21. But what about the following year? Here are the numbers at the moment:

We have $47.3M tied up in 11 guys for 2020/21: ROR, Tarasenko, Schenn, Perron, Sunny, Blais, MacMac, Parayko, Scandella, Faulk, and Bortz. Add a $9M Petro extension and that's $56.3M in 12 guys. Let's assume multiple years of flat cap means it is $81.5M in 2021/22 as well. Husso ($750k) basically has to be on the roster (or some other same-priced backup), as does Mikkola ($787.5k) and Kostin ($863k). So now we are at $58.7M with 15 guys on the roster. That leaves us with $22.8M to spend on Dunn, Binner, Schwartz, Thomas, Sanford, Barby, Kyrou and a 14th forward (or replacements for players on this list who are moved). Add $5.575M to that if Faulk is selected by Seattle and replaced with Perunovich (giving you $28.375M to spend). If someone else is selected by Seattle, then add that contract to the total you can spend (or remove a guy owed a pricey contract from the list to re-sign).

It is way too premature to try and guess exact contracts for each of these guys, but we know a couple things: Kyrou and Thomas don't have arbitration rights. Unless they have made Schwartz expendable, we will be able to get bridge deals done with them for substantial cap savings. If Thomas has made Schwartz expendable, then you can use the money saved on a Schwartz contract to lock in Thomas for 6+ years.

One of Sanford or Barby likely gets priced off the roster with arbitration rights, but they can be used as an asset in a trade. Losing guys like that isn't fun, but they aren't part of even a 10 guy core. If those are the collateral consequences of the cap, then we have successfully kept the window wide open. Here is a pretty realistic roster option for 2021/22 even if we can't move Faulk. It assumes we let Schwartz walk, extend Thomas at $6.5M, Dunn at $4M, Barby at $2.5M, Kyrou at $1.5M and Binner at $6M. Guessing salaries this far out is pure guesswork, but I think those estimates are reasonable if we are living in a world with a flat cap in 2021/22:

Schenn-Thomas-Tarasenko
Blais-ROR-Perron
Kyrou-Sunny-Kostin
Mac-Barby-cheap internal 12th forward
Cheap internal 13th and 14th forwards

Dunn-Petro
Scandella-Parayko
Mikkola-Faulk
Bortz

Binner
Husso

That would be a green 3rd line right now, but bear in mind we are talking about 2021/22 when Kyrou and Kostin have each had another year of development. Swap one of them for Blais if you are worried about inexperience on the 3rd line. Or maybe Perron has regressed to the point where he is better suited in the 3rd line support role Bozak has been playing. The lines are obviously guesses, but my overall point is that by 2021/22, it isn't a reach to pencil in Blais, Kyrou and Kostin to the top 9.

If we move Faulk and Kyrou/Kostin/Blais haven't earned the increased roles we had hoped, you can extend Schwartz, invest less money in those 3 moving forward and slide Perunovich into the NHL roster. (I think Perunovich will force his way onto the NHL roster no matter what by 2021/22, but I'm trying to not rely too heavily on prospects here).

There are tons of moving parts, but my point is that even with a Petro extension, we can keep a hell of a 10 guy core together through 2021/22 AND have solid complementary pieces even if our prospects don't take big leaps over the next 2 years. If just two of Blais, Kyrou, Kostin, Mikkola and Perunovich take big strides by 2021/22, we would be in fantastic shape without burning more assets to bring in external help. In fact, we should return some futures assets moving cap casualties over the next couple years, so we should be giving our scouting department every chance to draft a couple guys that can act as cheap ELC contributors from 2022 and beyond.

Moving on to 2022/23, the big question mark is Parayko. Luckily, Perron's $4M is coming off the books that summer, as is Bortz's $1.375. That should cover Parayko's raise. If we still have a flat cap, then Parayko's raise won't be as big as we are expecting because 3 seasons of a flat cap will brutalize the UFA market and very few teams will have any cap space. If this pandemic doesn't cause a multi-year flat cap, then we will also get the benefit of that space. 2022/23 will be tight, but it shouldn't be "blow up the team" tight.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but this organization is set up to push hard for the Cup over the next few years. Worry about 2026 five years from now. Extending Petro solidifies us as clear contenders for the next 2 seasons without needing to spend assets on external solutions at any position*. Extending Petro now and Parayko in 2022 makes us a clear contender in 2022/23 and beyond that contender status will be determined by how ROR and Tarasenko are handled. Extend Petro and let's go out and try to be a dynasty right now. It is a very rare thing to be able to look at a roster and say "we have the internal pieces to confidently be an elite team for 3 more years AND our cap is structured in a way that allows us to keep an entire 8+ player core together that entire time." There should be no hesitation to do what it takes to take advantage of that window.

*All of this assumes that we either extend Binner or are able to replace him with a comparable guy. You're not a contender if you don't have a goalie.

 

[The Note]

I will need to take an HF Hiatus if Petro signs in Toronto. I actually like the team a lot, but I fear a certain percentage of their massive fanbase would be unbearable.

 

[Brian39]

I will need to take an HF Hiatus if Petro signs in Toronto. I actually like the team a lot, but I fear a certain percentage of their massive fanbase would be unbearable.

I think Toronto signing Petro is just about the dumbest thing they could do this summer. Unlike the Blues, they don't really have any expendable/luxury guys that can be moved to shed noticeable salary. Additionally, they don't have any "bad" contracts coming off the books for 2021/22 to reduce the cap squeeze like the Blues do. EVen a massive discount from Petro puts them in a team-crippling level of cap hell. Let's say Petro takes $7M AAV to play with the Leafs. That puts them $2.5M over a flat cap with 5 roster spots to fill next season. Assuming $750k per spot to fill those w/ warm bodies, they would need to shed $6.15M in cap space for next season. So how do they shed that space?

The only real solution is to move Nylander and replace him with another guy making $750k. Extending Mikheyev is no longer an option as he will easily make over $1M. If they want to extend him since he would be a cheap option, then they need to also move one of Kerfoot, Hyman, Kapanen, or Johnssonin addition to Nylander. It is worth noting that none of those 4 guys make enough money to be the ones to get cleared instead of Nylander to fit Petro. You would need to move 3 of them to free up enough space for Petro. Going down this route, the Leafs would need to rely on 4 $750k guys in their healthy 12 man forward group and 2 $750k guys in their healthy 6 man D group. That is in addition to their reliance on $1.25M Pierre Engvall, $2.25M Zach Hyman, and $2M Justin Holl who are already factored into this lineup. Potential lineup:

Hyman-Matthews-Kapanen
Kerfoot-Tavares-Marner
Johnsson-Gauthier-Engvail
$750k-$750k-$750k

Muzzin-Petro
Reilly-Holl
Sandin-$750k

Andersen
Campbell

That is an incredibly shallow team that is worse offensively than this year's team. It has a better top 3 D, but the defensive depth takes a hit from an already shallow defensive group. And unless they win the division, their road through the playoffs goes through Boston and/or Tampa.

But the real killer is that this group is likely the best they will be able to assemble for a few years. Because guess what? Not a single costly contract comes off the books in the summer of 2021 (except the franchise goalie who needs a raise). Besides Andersen's contract, the only non-ELC contract coming off the books after 2020/21 is Hyman's $2.25 AAV. So their option at that point is to either let Hyman walk and give Andersen all of their remaining cap space (preventing them from giving any ELC player any raise at all) or let their #1 goalie walk with no internal replacement or financial ability to bring in an external option.

And then we get to the summer of 2022. A few contracts come off the books, but none of them are helpful. Reilly is a UFA and due a big raise from his $5M AAV. Sandin will be an RFA off his ELC. Kapanen is an RFA with arbitration rights and will almost certainly require a raise from his $3.2M. Engvall is an RFA with arbitration rights and who knows if he will earn more than his current $1.25M. Backup goalie Campbell's $1.65M comes off the books. Kessel's salary retention of $1.2M finally comes off the books. That's it. That's all the money that gets freed up and pretty much all of it will have to go to Reilly. Goodbye more depth.

And then there is the summer of 2023. Kerfoot comes off the books. He'll be a UFA and likely due a raise over his $3.5M. Johnsson also comes off the books at $3.4M and will be a UFA likely due a raise. Holl also comes off the books to free up $2M. That's it. That's all the salary that gets freed up.

So in the summers of 2021, 2022, and 2023 combined, the Leafs only see $23.45M come off the books. With that money they need either extend or replace UFAs Reilly, Andersen, Kerfoot, Hyman and Campbell. Plus do the same for RFAs Kapanaen, Engvall, Sandin and any other young guy plugged into the lineup on a cheap ELC who earns any type of raise. Let's put this another way. From 2021-2023, they will need to use $23.45M cap space to extend or replace every non-ELC on the roster besides Matthews, Tavares, Marner, Muzzin and Petro. Unless they trade Matthews or Marner, the absolute best they could do each summer is tread water and not address any depth problems for 3 full years.

To compare, the Blues have about $59M in non ELC contracts coming off the books in the summers of 2021, 2022, and 2023. We have two more guys to extend in that period, but many of them are due raises and we have the flexibility to pick and choose who is and isn't a necessity. Anyone who puts the Blues and Leafs on the same planet regarding cap issues is simply looking at next year's current cap number and nothing else. The Blues are miles ahead of the Leafs in terms of cap management.

And then we get to the summer of 2024 when Matthews and Muzzin hit UFA. Uh oh. And then the summer of 2025 when Marner and Tavares hit UFA. And just like that, the window is closed.

Signing even a discounted Petro would be a disasterous decision for Toronto. They were in cap hell with their existing contracts (even assuming a steady $3-4M increase to the cap each year). Swapping out Nylander's $6.9M for Petro at $7M keeps them in cap hell and the bind gets even worse now that a steady $3-4M increase is all but impossible. Signing Petro with a steadily increasing cap was probably a bad idea for them, but it would be a disaster in the current reality. They just can't afford to have $40M tied up in Matthews, Tavares, Marner and Petro. They also can't afford to have $40M+ tied up in Matthews, Tavares, Marner and Nylander. But Nylander doesn't have trade protection until 2023/24 and can get moved when the cap crunch gets unbearable. When they do move Nylander, it needs to be done to spread that caps space over 2-3 guys, not one guy. That luxury is gone in a world where the cap is very, very unlikely to rise noticeably over the next 2-3 years.

 

[The Note]

I think Toronto signing Petro is just about the dumbest thing they could do this summer. Unlike the Blues, they don't really have any expendable/luxury guys that can be moved to shed noticeable salary. Additionally, they don't have any "bad" contracts coming off the books for 2021/22 to reduce the cap squeeze like the Blues do. EVen a massive discount from Petro puts them in a team-crippling level of cap hell. Let's say Petro takes $7M AAV to play with the Leafs. That puts them $2.5M over a flat cap with 5 roster spots to fill next season. Assuming $750k per spot to fill those w/ warm bodies, they would need to shed $6.15M in cap space for next season. So how do they shed that space?

The only real solution is to move Nylander and replace him with another guy making $750k. Extending Mikheyev is no longer an option as he will easily make over $1M. If they want to extend him since he would be a cheap option, then they need to also move one of Kerfoot, Hyman, Kapanen, or Johnssonin addition to Nylander. It is worth noting that none of those 4 guys make enough money to be the ones to get cleared instead of Nylander to fit Petro. You would need to move 3 of them to free up enough space for Petro. Going down this route, the Leafs would need to rely on 4 $750k guys in their healthy 12 man forward group and 2 $750k guys in their healthy 6 man D group. That is in addition to their reliance on $1.25M Pierre Engvall, $2.25M Zach Hyman, and $2M Justin Holl who are already factored into this lineup. Potential lineup:

Hyman-Matthews-Kapanen
Kerfoot-Tavares-Marner
Johnsson-Gauthier-Engvail
$750k-$750k-$750k

Muzzin-Petro
Reilly-Holl
Sandin-$750k

Andersen
Campbell

That is an incredibly shallow team that is worse offensively than this year's team. It has a better top 3 D, but the defensive depth takes a hit from an already shallow defensive group. And unless they win the division, their road through the playoffs goes through Boston and/or Tampa.

But the real killer is that this group is likely the best they will be able to assemble for a few years. Because guess what? Not a single costly contract comes off the books in the summer of 2021 (except the franchise goalie who needs a raise). Besides Andersen's contract, the only non-ELC contract coming off the books after 2020/21 is Hyman's $2.25 AAV. So their option at that point is to either let Hyman walk and give Andersen all of their remaining cap space (preventing them from giving any ELC player any raise at all) or let their #1 goalie walk with no internal replacement or financial ability to bring in an external option.

And then we get to the summer of 2022. A few contracts come off the books, but none of them are helpful. Reilly is a UFA and due a big raise from his $5M AAV. Sandin will be an RFA off his ELC. Kapanen is an RFA with arbitration rights and will almost certainly require a raise from his $3.2M. Engvall is an RFA with arbitration rights and who knows if he will earn more than his current $1.25M. Backup goalie Campbell's $1.65M comes off the books. Kessel's salary retention of $1.2M finally comes off the books. That's it. That's all the money that gets freed up and pretty much all of it will have to go to Reilly. Goodbye more depth.

And then there is the summer of 2023. Kerfoot comes off the books. He'll be a UFA and likely due a raise over his $3.5M. Johnsson also comes off the books at $3.4M and will be a UFA likely due a raise. Holl also comes off the books to free up $2M. That's it. That's all the salary that gets freed up.

So in the summers of 2021, 2022, and 2023 combined, the Leafs only see $23.45M come off the books. With that money they need either extend or replace UFAs Reilly, Andersen, Kerfoot, Hyman and Campbell. Plus do the same for RFAs Kapanaen, Engvall, Sandin and any other young guy plugged into the lineup on a cheap ELC who earns any type of raise. Let's put this another way. From 2021-2023, they will need to use $23.45M cap space to extend or replace every non-ELC on the roster besides Matthews, Tavares, Marner, Muzzin and Petro. Unless they trade Matthews or Marner, the absolute best they could do each summer is tread water and not address any depth problems for 3 full years.

To compare, the Blues have about $59M in non ELC contracts coming off the books in the summers of 2021, 2022, and 2023. We have two more guys to extend in that period, but many of them are due raises and we have the flexibility to pick and choose who is and isn't a necessity. Anyone who puts the Blues and Leafs on the same planet regarding cap issues is simply looking at next year's current cap number and nothing else. The Blues are miles ahead of the Leafs in terms of cap management.

And then we get to the summer of 2024 when Matthews and Muzzin hit UFA. Uh oh. And then the summer of 2025 when Marner and Tavares hit UFA. And just like that, the window is closed.

Signing even a discounted Petro would be a disasterous decision for Toronto. They were in cap hell with their existing contracts (even assuming a steady $3-4M increase to the cap each year). Swapping out Nylander's $6.9M for Petro at $7M keeps them in cap hell and the bind gets even worse now that a steady $3-4M increase is all but impossible. Signing Petro with a steadily increasing cap was probably a bad idea for them, but it would be a disaster in the current reality. They just can't afford to have $40M tied up in Matthews, Tavares, Marner and Petro. They also can't afford to have $40M+ tied up in Matthews, Tavares, Marner and Nylander. But Nylander doesn't have trade protection until 2023/24 and can get moved when the cap crunch gets unbearable. When they do move Nylander, it needs to be done to spread that caps space over 2-3 guys, not one guy. That luxury is gone in a world where the cap is very, very unlikely to rise noticeably over the next 2-3 years.

Oh, your point(s) are well taken. I should’ve prefaced my message by saying I neither expect him to sign there nor the Leafs to start tearing down their team to make it happen. Just a rouge thought I had after seeing the thread about trading Marner to fit Petro.

As an aside I’d just like to say I really appreciate the way you respond and the depth you bring to those responses. Even if I don’t necessarily agree I can always at least see where you’re coming from and how you arrived at that view point. One of the best regular posters here, IMO.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

I will need to take an HF Hiatus if Petro signs in Toronto. I actually like the team a lot, but I fear a certain percentage of their massive fanbase would be unbearable.

That team is as soft as a cream puff. Nothing to worry about. If Petro goes there I'll make a claim here and now, they won't see the Cup in the next 3-4 years.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

That team is as soft as a cream puff. Nothing to worry about. If Petro goes there I'll make a claim here and now, they won't see the Cup in the next 3-4 years.

Getting Pietro for his leadership to a team like Toronto (not simply for his elite defensive play) is an interesting thought. Assuming the salary worked out, what kind of voice would Alex bring to that locker room? There are sometimes strange dynamics, especially with the entrenched player-leaders. Its looked on the outside like that team lacked something in that department, and I'm not convinced Tavares is vocal enough to provide it. I don't think he's the problem, but maybe not able to overcome past trends.

Frankly, I think the Leafs would improve more with the same roster and adding Berube than by adding Pietro.

 

[Brockon]

Getting Pietro for his leadership to a team like Toronto (not simply for his elite defensive play) is an interesting thought. Assuming the salary worked out, what kind of voice would Alex bring to that locker room? There are sometimes strange dynamics, especially with the entrenched player-leaders. Its looked on the outside like that team lacked something in that department, and I'm not convinced Tavares is vocal enough to provide it. I don't think he's the problem, but maybe not able to overcome past trends.

Frankly, I think the Leafs would improve more with the same roster and adding Berube than by adding Pietro.

Certainly an interesting line of thought.

I mean, Toronto's improvement after the Babcock firing and O'Keefe hiring certainly suggests there was a problem with the message behind the bench.

But, I'm inclined to believe there's more than a systems problem or problem with the voice delivering the message in Toronto - their depth drop-off is just so drastic for all their skaters. They can't afford to bring in anyone to offset any of it.

I mean, Matthews, Marner and Nylander all lack trade protection on their deals for the next few years... Maybe Toronto needs to explore getting a top end Dman back for one 9f them before their NTCs kick in. 10-11M in cap goes a long ways towards improving the team. I'd suggest Tavares ahead of the aforementioned, but he's got a NMC until the end of his contract...

 

[bluesXwinXtheXcup]

I would trade anyone not named Binnington or Parayko for Matthews.

He is a HOFer to me...

 

[Brian39]

I would trade anyone not named Binnington or Parayko for Matthews.

He is a HOFer to me...

Matthews the player is better than any player on the Blues roster. But I would be hesitant to trade for that contract. He makes $11.634M against the cap and he will demand a raise over that in 4 years. That's just $3.366 shy of what ROR and Tarasenko make combined. I'm not sold that Matthews + $3.366M gets you a better duo than ROR and Tarasenko.

1 for 1, I think you are correct about trading any player for him. However, the Leafs aren't doing a 1 for 1 trade involving Matthews, so we would be giving up a lot extra beyond just the one roster player in order to get him. I wouldn't trade a top end roster player plus other assets in order to take on that contract. He's a hell of a player, but that contract is a disaster.

 

[joe galiba]

Are the deep pockets that back Stillman with cash going to be willing to pony up truck loads of cash not only just to spend to the cap but to cover the massive losses moving forwards if fans are not let back in to watch games?
That certainly plays into resigning Petro
I could very easily see several teams folding over this
I could also see players and owners clashing over reductions in the cap and cutting of current salaries

 

[tomin]

St. Louis local radio his Tim McKernan interviewed Doug the other day.
The Tim McKernan Show Ep. 348 – Doug Armstrong - insidestl.com

8:37 mark Doug joins - league coming back, random chatter, etc.
19:55 - Pietrangelo talk picks up

Take aways - Doug and Alex have been together since the beginning for the both of them. "He's our captain... I know he wants to be here I know we want to keep him here", "We are going to do everything we can to get Alex under contract and keep him here, and I know that's what he wants, its just a timing issue now". Doug talks about summer signings, getting creative with Alex, then extends into the future, the "window", and core group of players, some names named.

Enjoy.