OT: Provorov comparison to CP 55

[Xerloris]

That last comment makes it sound like he really wants to say a lot of things about this, but likely thought it was not a good idea to do so in the middle of his career, likely in part due to reasons stated in your following post.

I figured him winning the Cup this year and this team entering an entirely new era might finally get us past this, but maybe Petro can continue providing this forum infinite content even post retirement... xD

I believe it can all be laid to rest now. He wanted to leave so f*** him. People can stop crying about Armstrong now.

 

[Majorityof1]

Lebrun's article this morning had some interesting quotes from Petro. He appears to have dropped his BS about needing NMC:

“It was obviously a tough decision, but I wanted to be somewhere where I knew I had a chance to compete."

“Do we miss St. Louis? Of course, no doubt about it. My wife’s from there. We go back in the summer. But professionally, this is probably the best organization in the NHL. And it starts with (owner) Bill (Foley). It starts with the passion that he shares to win — the effort that he goes to not just for the players but for the families, to make them comfortable.”

and then this gem:

“I know a lot of people have questions about why we left. But that’s a conversation for another day. Maybe when I’m done playing, I’ll be able to speak out on how it actually went down.”

i think, and this is just speculation but is based on what do we know, is that summer before when they started negotiating he asked to be made 3rd highest paid d in the league. Army basically told him that wasn't gonna happen. You may remember Army saying to press that summer that we didn't have any superstars, were a team of upper middle class players, and that we couldn't pay anyone like a superstar. This was basically the Bruins model where the stars took less.

i think that Petro got his feelings hurt by what Army had said to him t and his resigning became unlikely. Army realized that there was a major disconnect and traded for Faulk. He still tried to get Petro signed after that but doesn't seem like they ever really bridged the gap. When Petro got on that plane to Vegas he may have still been hoping that Blues would call him and tell him that he was right, they were wrong, he is a true superstar and they would pay him whatever it took. But no way Army was gonna do that.

Petro didn't wanna say he left because he wanted more money because that would make him look greedy. He didn't want to say he left because he is one of 3 best d in the league and we wouldn't pay him as such because that would make him look arrogant. He didn't want to say he left because Army was mean to him and hurt his feelings, because that would make him look like a whiny little b!tch. So he went with that BS about leaving bc Blues wouldn't give him NMC, which made him look like a lying sack of sh!t.

This is just ridiculous. You take 3 quotes that were cherry picked in an article about how he's anchored 2 cup winners, not specifically about his leaving St. Louis, and you craft a bullshit narrative out of rumor and innuendo and this fan bases inability to admit Armstrong made a mistake.

Its total BS, and nothing in that article supports anything you wrote. Maybe he didn't mention the NMC because he is about to win his 2nd cup and it doesn't matter. Most of what he said was he was happy with his decision and pumping the tires on his current team.

You literally say it can't have been about the NMC because he didn't mention the NMC, so therefore it must be about $$$$$. Well he didn't f***ing mention money either. So how can his not mentioning one thing mean that didn't matter and his not mentioning another thing must mean that was the only thing that mattered. That is disingenuous as hell.

 

[Blueston]

This is just ridiculous. You take 3 quotes that were cherry picked in an article about how he's anchored 2 cup winners, not specifically about his leaving St. Louis, and you craft a bullshit narrative out of rumor and innuendo and this fan bases inability to admit Armstrong made a mistake.

Its total BS, and nothing in that article supports anything you wrote. Maybe he didn't mention the NMC because he is about to win his 2nd cup and it doesn't matter. Most of what he said was he was happy with his decision and pumping the tires on his current team.

You literally say it can't have been about the NMC because he didn't mention the NMC, so therefore it must be about $$$$$. Well he didn't f***ing mention money either. So how can his not mentioning one thing mean that didn't matter and his not mentioning another thing must mean that was the only thing that mattered. That is disingenuous as hell.

I get it. Reading is hard. Especially when you already know the story you want to see.

 

[Majorityof1]

I get it. Reading is hard. Especially when you already know the story you want to hear.

Then explain it to me in small words. How does Lebrun not including a quote about NMC in that article mean Petro "asked to be made 3rd highest paid d in the league", and that "Petro got his feelings hurt by what Army had said to him"?

You say I have the story I want to hear in my head. You wrote out your little fan fic above.

 

[GoldenSeal]

What folks aren't taking a moment to think about is that if that was -really- how Pie felt with Army, wanting to go to 'compete', then he saw the writing on the wall and the team about to seriously decline with how Army was approaching things. And if that's the case, he's right and that's a legit nail in Army's coffin, no matter how you view it.

On top of that, If Army said something purposely to 'hurt his feelings', he's really, really dumb. Guy thinks you can replace everyone and anyone. Some of those folks are drinking out of the Cup tonight while -not- wearing Blue.

Idiot.

 

[Blueston]

Then explain it to me in small words. How does Lebrun not including a quote about NMC in that article mean Petro "asked to be made 3rd highest paid d in the league", and that "Petro got his feelings hurt by what Army had said to him"?

You say I have the story I want to hear in my head. You wrote out your little fan fic above.

did you read the article? have you read anything about those negotiations from national writers? bc you seem stuck on your JR fan fiction.

 

[Majorityof1]

did you read the article? have you read anything about those negotiations from national writers? bc you seem stuck on your JR fan fiction.

Have you looked at the contract and how much we were rumored to have offered? He got less total money than we were reported to have offered but better bonuses, structure and an NMC. Yea, he got a better AAV, but on a last big contract like that, total money is more important, since he might not play after it, and he certainly won't get anywhere near as much if he does. If he only cared about money, why would he take less of it?

Did money play a part? Maybe. Maybe he thinks he can earn $4-5M on a contract in that 8th year. But that would only be $1.5 to $2M more than the Blues offered and its far, far far from guranteed. Did Armstorng's not wanting to offer him more hurt his feelings? Maybe? But come on. He's a pro athlete. Is he going to make a decision because his feeling got hurt when his boss negotiated too hard.

Even if those things played a small part, it is ludicrous to say the NMC and structuring the contract to maximize the amount of money he'd keep played no part in it. Those are things Armstrong refused to do. Armstrong admitted he did not meet Pietrangelo fully on what he wanted in that regard. Vegas did.

I don't need to look further than that. Vegas gave him a contract that we should have waited and matched, We didn't. We signed a boat anchor in Krug and wouldn't budge on basic contract incentives. In a salary cap league, every team should use these things with their superstars to keep the AAV down because they have value to players and don't count against the cap.

 

[Blueston]

Have you looked at the contract and how much we were rumored to have offered? He got less total money than we were reported to have offered but better bonuses, structure and an NMC. Yea, he got a better AAV, but on a last big contract like that, total money is more important, since he might not play after it, and he certainly won't get anywhere near as much if he does. If he only cared about money, why would he take less of it?

Did money play a part? Maybe. Maybe he thinks he can earn $4-5M on a contract in that 8th year. But that would only be $1.5 to $2M more than the Blues offered and its far, far far from guranteed. Did Armstorng's not wanting to offer him more hurt his feelings? Maybe? But come on. He's a pro athlete. Is he going to make a decision because his feeling got hurt when his boss negotiated too hard.

Even if those things played a small part, it is ludicrous to say the NMC and structuring the contract to maximize the amount of money he'd keep played no part in it. Those are things Armstrong refused to do. Armstrong admitted he did not meet Pietrangelo fully on what he wanted in that regard. Vegas did.

I don't need to look further than that. Vegas gave him a contract that we should have waited and matched, We didn't. We signed a boat anchor in Krug and wouldn't budge on basic contract incentives. In a salary cap league, every team should use these things with their superstars to keep the AAV down because they have value to players and don't count against the cap.

so you didn’t read the article. You are sticking with JR fan fiction. No reason for us to discuss this further.

 

[Majorityof1]

so you didn’t read the article. You are sticking with JR fan fiction. No reason for us to discuss this further.

I obviously read the article. It was about how Pietrangelo anchored 2 Cup teams (well 1 and one on the brink at the time of writing). It included some discussion of why he left St. Louis, but only in the context that it was a tough decision and seemed to have worked out as he is about to hoist his 2nd cup.

Again, I ask, what did I miss that said he only cared about $$? The only mention of money difference was "a deal that included $35 million in signing bonus money, the kind of thing that likely had never been on the table in St. Louis." If you are arguing bonuses were important, I agree with you. I always have said that bonus structure was a facotr. The article never mentions AAV or total money being a deciding factor. Nor does it hint at it. It definitely doesn't say anything about him thinking he wanted to be the 3rd highest paid D in the league.

 

[Xerloris]

What folks aren't taking a moment to think about is that if that was -really- how Pie felt with Army, wanting to go to 'compete', then he saw the writing on the wall and the team about to seriously decline with how Army was approaching things. And if that's the case, he's right and that's a legit nail in Army's coffin, no matter how you view it.

On top of that, If Army said something purposely to 'hurt his feelings', he's really, really dumb. Guy thinks you can replace everyone and anyone. Some of those folks are drinking out of the Cup tonight while -not- wearing Blue.

Idiot.

Maybe he didn't think we could compete after Steen and Jbo had to retire? Things completely out of Armstrongs control.

Have you looked at the contract and how much we were rumored to have offered? He got less total money than we were reported to have offered but better bonuses, structure and an NMC. Yea, he got a better AAV, but on a last big contract like that, total money is more important, since he might not play after it, and he certainly won't get anywhere near as much if he does. If he only cared about money, why would he take less of it?

Did money play a part? Maybe. Maybe he thinks he can earn $4-5M on a contract in that 8th year. But that would only be $1.5 to $2M more than the Blues offered and its far, far far from guranteed. Did Armstorng's not wanting to offer him more hurt his feelings? Maybe? But come on. He's a pro athlete. Is he going to make a decision because his feeling got hurt when his boss negotiated too hard.

Even if those things played a small part, it is ludicrous to say the NMC and structuring the contract to maximize the amount of money he'd keep played no part in it. Those are things Armstrong refused to do. Armstrong admitted he did not meet Pietrangelo fully on what he wanted in that regard. Vegas did.

I don't need to look further than that. Vegas gave him a contract that we should have waited and matched, We didn't. We signed a boat anchor in Krug and wouldn't budge on basic contract incentives. In a salary cap league, every team should use these things with their superstars to keep the AAV down because they have value to players and don't count against the cap.

You keep using that word superstar and I don't think it means what you think it means. There's like 7-8 superstars in the league at any time, MAYBE up to 10. Pietrangelo does not fit into that category.

I obviously read the article. It was about how Pietrangelo anchored 2 Cup teams (well 1 and one on the brink at the time of writing). It included some discussion of why he left St. Louis, but only in the context that it was a tough decision and seemed to have worked out as he is about to hoist his 2nd cup.

Again, I ask, what did I miss that said he only cared about $$? The only mention of money difference was "a deal that included $35 million in signing bonus money, the kind of thing that likely had never been on the table in St. Louis." If you are arguing bonuses were important, I agree with you. I always have said that bonus structure was a facotr. The article never mentions AAV or total money being a deciding factor. Nor does it hint at it. It definitely doesn't say anything about him thinking he wanted to be the 3rd highest paid D in the league.

The signing bonus is not a thing here because our owner isn't a billionaire able to throw money around. If that's one of the reason you think he left and you blame us for not offering it then that's just ignorant.

 

[Blueston]

I obviously read the article. It was about how Pietrangelo anchored 2 Cup teams (well 1 and one on the brink at the time of writing). It included some discussion of why he left St. Louis, but only in the context that it was a tough decision and seemed to have worked out as he is about to hoist his 2nd cup.

Again, I ask, what did I miss that said he only cared about $$? The only mention of money difference was "a deal that included $35 million in signing bonus money, the kind of thing that likely had never been on the table in St. Louis." If you are arguing bonuses were important, I agree with you. I always have said that bonus structure was a facotr. The article never mentions AAV or total money being a deciding factor. Nor does it hint at it. It definitely doesn't say anything about him thinking he wanted to be the 3rd highest paid D in the league.

there has been much written about his ask and how far apart that was from what we were offering. how he only lowered his ask when JosI signed for less than Petro ask. But nothing I say can convince you so we are done.

 

[GoldenSeal]

there has been much written about his ask and how far apart that was from what we were offering. how he only lowered his ask when JosI signed for less than Petro ask. But nothing I say can convince you so we are done.

So he wanted to leave to compete or would he have stayed if we made such an offer?

Both can’t be true.

 

[Xerloris]

So he wanted to leave to compete or would he have stayed if we made such an offer?

Both can’t be true.

He lied and said wah wah NMC and now he's admitting that he left to a team he felt could compete. The money and NMC never mattered.

 

[GoldenSeal]

He lied and said wah wah NMC and now he's admitting that he left to a team he felt could compete. The money and NMC never mattered.

Thank you.

 

[tfriede2]

Sort of convenient that he now says he left for a team that could compete when said team was one win away from the Cup (and the Blues missed the playoffs); kind of hard to make that argument last year.

 

[Blueston]

He lied and said wah wah NMC and now he's admitting that he left to a team he felt could compete. The money and NMC never mattered.

He’s still lying. He walked away from team that was best in west prior to Covid. He didn’t leave bc he didn’t think we could compete.

 

[PJJJP]

I have a simple solution. Both Army and Petro are lying and telling the truth. We will never hear the actual truth because most people will try to make themselves look better. Maybe they're was a miscommunication and both parties perceived the same events very differently.

 

[Brian39]

Let me try to word this to be more specific in my issue. Is Pietrangelo a good #1 Dman? Yes he is. Is he better than Parayko and Faulk individually? Yes he is.

When Pietrangelo was here with lesser partners it was under Hitchcock and the entire team played defense 1st hockey. That gave him a tremendous amount of help making his job considerably easier. When Hitchcock left and the defense 1st mentality started to shift his defense partners were now Jbo, Parayko, Eddie, Dunn. Considerably better than what we have now.

In his final 3 seasons here (all played under Yeo and/or Berube), he played the most 5 on 5 minutes with Eddy (968 minutes), Gunnar (925 minutes), and Dunn (764 minutes). I do not at all agree that those 3 guys were (at the time) considerably better than Leddy, Scandella, and Krug (over their time here).

It is not true to say that Petro was given better partners in the post-Hitch era than Parayko and Faulk have been given in the post-Petro era. Your claim that Petro only did it with lesser partners under Hitch is simply not true. Your premise that Petro only did it with lesser partners under Hitch just objectively isn't true.

Petro put up positive possession numbers with both Gunnar and Eddy and had a GF% above 55% with both of them despite a 45% O Zone start rate over these 3 seasons. Both of these pairs were very effective in a top pair role. His time with Dunn was very offense-focused (65% O zone start rate), but the two absolutely dominated. They were between 55% and 60% in every metric, including a 60% goal percentage.

Dunn at that stage of his career was absolutely not yet considerably better than Krug has been in his 3 seasons here. My stance in 2020 was that we should have allowed Dunn to continue growing into that role/ability instead of signing Krug, but he was not a better player than the Torey Krug we have gotten during his first 3 seasons as a Blue.

The Scandella we had in 2020/21 and 2021/22 was absolutely not considerably worse than the Eddy or Gunnar we had in 2017/18-2018/19 (and half of 2019/20 in Gunnar's case).

The Leddy we've had in (part of) 2021/22 and 2022/23 was absolutely better than the Eddy or Gunnar we had playing with Petro.

Bo-Petro was Hitch's go-to pairing. Hitch is the one that attached those two at the hip. Yeo was the one who split them up in 2017/18. Part of that was the injury to Bo, but Yeo split Bo's time evenly between Petro/Parayko that year which is something Hitch never remotely considered.

2017/18 was arguably Petro's best season as a Blue and he did it in a Mike Yeo system with Eddy and Gunnar as his 2 most frequent partners. Petro set career highs in goals (total and even strength) and points (total and even strength). He finished the year +8 overall, +12 at 5 on 5, and 3rd among NHL D in even strength points. He faced the highest quality of competition on the team and only started in the O-Zone 45% of the time. He was unbelievable in a defensive-heavy, all situations top pair in a Mike Yeo system with a couple middle-pair-at-best caliber guys as his partner.

It wasn't quite the role we've asked Parayko to take on (because Parayko's zone starts are ludicrous), but the minutes, competition, and quality of partner are dead even. I'd very much argue that 2017/18 Eddy/Gunnar are not as good as Leddy/Scandella in their time with the team. Leddy in particular has been surprisingly fantastic as a Blue. In pretty damn similar usage, his results were substantially better than Parayko's.

Petro overwhelmingly demonstrated that he is good enough to give his team a quality all-situations top pair that produces substantial offense in a shutdown role even when his partner is a #4 or #5 caliber player. And he did that in Mike freaking Yeo's system. I'm all for a discussion about how J-Bo's loss was a huge blow and that airdropping Petro in place of Faulk or Parayko with no other changes doesn't magically make this team an immediate top 10 D. But this premise that Petro can't carry a Leddy/Scandella player to a good top pair isn't factual. The partners he had post-Hitch just aren't the caliber of player you keep claiming that they were.

So now Parayko and Faulk do not have the benefit of a defense 1st team or good partners and we've all seen the stats that have been posted of Parayko having the hardest usage in the NHL but we still have people blaming him and wanting him traded because apparently they can't take things with context and see Parayko is being sandbagged. Trying to argue with people that if we had a #1 LD our defense would be not only IMO significantly better but possibly top 10 if not top5 in the league, coaching change not withstanding. It gets frustrating and if you try to argue in favor of Parayko or Faulk you get "well Pietrangelo did xxxx" in return.

I don't know who our #1 LD may be next year but any one of Hanifan, Chabot, Miller, all could be long shots but if you put any one of them at #1 LD with Parayko and then Leddy and Faulk as 2nd pair. All of a sudden our Defense is borderline spectacular. I like Krug as a player but he can't handle the heavy defensive usage we need and he's paid to much to be a 3rd pair guy. Hell, Scandella and Bortuzzo on 3rd pair would be impressive IMO as well, would make one hell of a PK duo.

So my main point is I'm not meaning to attack anyone individually or personally if that's how it comes off but I am arguing against the idea that Pietrangelo(all by himself) would fix our defense and that Parayko is a problem that needs traded.

I agree that Parayko shouldn't be traded. I could be a founding member of the 'don't trade Parayko' booster club.

I also agree that adding a guy like Hanifin, Chabot, or Miller to Parayko, Faulk, and Leddy makes the top 4 a big strength (although I'm probably lower on Hanifin being that guy as most). That notion is pretty much the entire premise of my plan for a retool. From where we are currently at as an organzition, I think finding a way to get one of these guys is the best path back to contention. IMO the only non-huge-rebuild path is to get one of these guys or a similar guy who becomes available.

We had a clear path to keeping most of a Cup-winning D group together. J-Bo's exit came sooner than expected, but we were nearing the point where we needed an exit strategy. Simply extending guys on contracts they got elsewhere would have led to a better D than the one we've had for no more money. The left side would still need work, but less work than it does now and with one less negative-value contract creating a barrier for that acquisition. That all can't just be ignored when saying Petro alone wouldn't magically fix the D.

 

[stl76]

I have a simple solution. Both Army and Petro are lying and telling the truth. We will never hear the actual truth because most people will try to make themselves look better. Maybe they're was a miscommunication and both parties perceived the same events very differently.

Nah man, one side has to be good and the other has to be evil.

 

[Brian39]

Lebrun's article this morning had some interesting quotes from Petro. He appears to have dropped his BS about needing NMC:

Gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

“It was obviously a tough decision, but I wanted to be somewhere where I knew I had a chance to compete."

The context for that quote was that negotiations with St. Louis failed to result in an extension, the Leafs reached out to him on day 1 of free agency, he instead went to Vegas to hear their presentation, was sold by their presentation, and then signed with them on the 3rd day of free agency. Here is the full quote after Lebrun outlined that context over the 3 preceding paragraphs:

“Coming here, meeting with Kelly and George and (hearing) their vision of how the team could be built and where the team was going to go — we shared a similar vision,” Pietrangelo said Monday. “So for me to be on the same page was important. It was a good team before I got here, and then myself, Jack (Eichel) and Barby (Ivan Barbashev), all of a sudden you get these pieces together and here we are.”

Which is one win away from delivering a Stanley Cup to Vegas. Which was the vision after he left another Cup team in St. Louis.

“It was obviously a tough decision, but I wanted to be somewhere where I knew I had a chance to compete,” added the 33-year-old native of King City, Ont., just north of Toronto.

Given all that context, I find it to be an enormous leap in logic that he was suggesting that he didn't think he could win here. An even larger leap to determine that his desire to be in a winning organization invalidates a stated desire for a full NMC, which gives a player the full assurance that he can't be moved to a non-contender against his will. An assurance that Vegas was willing to put in writing during their presentation that sold him on the organization.

“Do we miss St. Louis? Of course, no doubt about it. My wife’s from there. We go back in the summer. But professionally, this is probably the best organization in the NHL. And it starts with (owner) Bill (Foley). It starts with the passion that he shares to win — the effort that he goes to not just for the players but for the families, to make them comfortable.”

How does this refute his stated desire for a NMC? Wasn't part of his stated reason for a NMC family-related? Increased security absolutely makes things more comfortable for a player's family. Knowing that you can't be forced to move (or live in a separate city from husband/dad) absolutely provides comfort for a family.

and then this gem:

“I know a lot of people have questions about why we left. But that’s a conversation for another day. Maybe when I’m done playing, I’ll be able to speak out on how it actually went down.”

Friedman has brought up on multiple occasions that negotiations between Army and Petro got personal. That Lebrun article you are quoting references it as well by describing it as a bitter departure and later including this quote from J-Bo:

“I’m not going to speculate on what really went on there. I have a lot of respect for (Blues GM Doug Armstrong), and he’s really good at his job. Petro’s really good at his job. They’re both pretty headstrong people, and I can imagine what went on.”

That last comment by Bouwmeester was made with a faint chuckle. No doubt both Armstrong and Pietrangelo are headstrong. And it’s pretty clear the whole ordeal is still too raw for either one to revisit in full detail.

I have no doubt that there are details that haven't been made public. But I don't think it is at all a rational jump to say that because there was animosity during negotiations that he doesn't want to talk about the day before a Cup Final game it suddenly means that his stated desire for a NMC was BS. Bo's quote (and Lebrun's provided color) certainly paints a picture of both sides refusing to budge from a position that is important to them.

Two parties being too headstrong to compromise would fully support the notion that the lack of a full NMC in each year of the contract was a deal killer for Petro and a full NMC for each year of the contract was a deal killer for Army. Petro arguing that he's the caliber of player that deserves such a clause and Army refusing to budge is exactly the type of thing that could lead to negotiations getting personal and ugly. That conversation/negotiation will always boil down to the GM having to concede that he values the freedom to move the player over the risk of killing a deal. It, by definition, means that the team will not commit to the player being able to retire as a lifelong member of the organization. That is going to generate hard feelings.

Our own GM confirmed that he wasn't willing to offer a full NMC for the duration of the contract. Friedman (who I trust more than any other national reporter) has repeatedly cited that as an issue in negotiations on his podcast. Petro got a full NMC for the duration of the contract from Vegas and has since praised how great their organization is to he and his family.

I genuinely don't understand how any of this stuff convinces you that he didn't actually care about the NMC.

Do I believe that his agent was leaking the NMC issue to try and impact negotiations? Absolutely. Does that mean it was BS? Absolutely not. The fact that Army went on record explaining why he wouldn't give a full NMC for the duration of the contract instead of refuting the claim tells me that it was absolutely a key issue in negotiations.

 

[Xerloris]

The fact that Army went on record explaining why he wouldn't give a full NMC for the duration of the contract instead of refuting the claim tells me that it was absolutely a key issue in negotiations.

Maybe he only had to do that because JR was reporting false hoods from the agent? Kind of how he was doing for Tarasenko.

 

[Brian39]

Maybe he only had to do that because JR was reporting false hoods from the agent? Kind of how he was doing for Tarasenko.

You know that GMs are allowed to call something false even though a journalist has written about it right?

"We actually did offer a full NMC for the duration of the deal."

"Petro never indicated to us that he wanted a NMC in each year of the deal."

"Despite what's been reported, his agent told us during negotiations that the sticking point was money. He wanted a number that we simply weren't willing to go to. We never even reached discussions about a NMC because we weren't even in the same ballpark on the money."

All of these are possible responses if the NMC wasn't a sticking point in negotiations and JR was just spreading falsehoods. If the team had been willing to offer a full NMC or such a clause wasn't something that Petro's representation was aggressively pushing for, Army absolutely didn't "have to" respond the way he did.

 

[Xerloris]

You know that GMs are allowed to call something false even though a journalist has written about it right?

"We actually did offer a full NMC for the duration of the deal."

"Petro never indicated to us that he wanted a NMC in each year of the deal."

"Despite what's been reported, his agent told us during negotiations that the sticking point was money. He wanted a number that we simply weren't willing to go to. We never even reached discussions about a NMC because we weren't even in the same ballpark on the money."

All of these are possible responses if the NMC wasn't a sticking point in negotiations and JR was just spreading falsehoods. If the team had been willing to offer a full NMC or such a clause wasn't something that Petro's representation was aggressively pushing for, Army absolutely didn't "have to" respond the way he did.

What I meant was that maybe Armstrong only talked about it because JR was reporting about it, so he explained what was actually going on instead of letting JR write the narrative which is all he's good for. a mouth piece for agents.

 

[Brian39]

What I meant was that maybe Armstrong only talked about it because JR was reporting about it, so he explained what was actually going on instead of letting JR write the narrative which is all he's good for. a mouth piece for agents.

And again, if the NMC stuff was only 'narrative' and not something actually being pushed for in negotiations, then Army absolutely could have said that. Both of my second quotes are addressing that scenario. If Army wanted to take more of a direct shot at JR, he could have said something along the lines of "it's funny, I heard more about Petro wanting a NMC from your articles than I ever heard during conversations with his agent."

Army's explanation of what was "actually going on" was a confirmation that the team offered what he felt was a fair middle ground between his normal policy on not giving out NMCs and giving out a full NMC for the duration of the deal. Army's explanation of what was "actually going on" offered no pushback to JR's clear and ongoing narrative that the NMC issue was a sticking point in negotiations. Army's explanation didn't refute the narrative. It clarified that the team moved toward the middle on that issue during negotiations, which supports the notion that it was in fact a real sticking point in negotiations.

Army had a clear opportunity to explain that the NMC issue was a fabrication by JR (and/or the player's agent). He didn't and instead used that time to justify his unwillingness to offer a full NMC for the duration of the contract like the one Petro actually got.

 

[Blueston]

Gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.


The context for that quote was that negotiations with St. Louis failed to result in an extension, the Leafs reached out to him on day 1 of free agency, he instead went to Vegas to hear their presentation, was sold by their presentation, and then signed with them on the 3rd day of free agency. Here is the full quote after Lebrun outlined that context over the 3 preceding paragraphs:

“Coming here, meeting with Kelly and George and (hearing) their vision of how the team could be built and where the team was going to go — we shared a similar vision,” Pietrangelo said Monday. “So for me to be on the same page was important. It was a good team before I got here, and then myself, Jack (Eichel) and Barby (Ivan Barbashev), all of a sudden you get these pieces together and here we are.”

Which is one win away from delivering a Stanley Cup to Vegas. Which was the vision after he left another Cup team in St. Louis.

“It was obviously a tough decision, but I wanted to be somewhere where I knew I had a chance to compete,” added the 33-year-old native of King City, Ont., just north of Toronto.

Given all that context, I find it to be an enormous leap in logic that he was suggesting that he didn't think he could win here. An even larger leap to determine that his desire to be in a winning organization invalidates a stated desire for a full NMC, which gives a player the full assurance that he can't be moved to a non-contender against his will. An assurance that Vegas was willing to put in writing during their presentation that sold him on the organization.



How does this refute his stated desire for a NMC? Wasn't part of his stated reason for a NMC family-related? Increased security absolutely makes things more comfortable for a player's family. Knowing that you can't be forced to move (or live in a separate city from husband/dad) absolutely provides comfort for a family.



Friedman has brought up on multiple occasions that negotiations between Army and Petro got personal. That Lebrun article you are quoting references it as well by describing it as a bitter departure and later including this quote from J-Bo:

“I’m not going to speculate on what really went on there. I have a lot of respect for (Blues GM Doug Armstrong), and he’s really good at his job. Petro’s really good at his job. They’re both pretty headstrong people, and I can imagine what went on.”

That last comment by Bouwmeester was made with a faint chuckle. No doubt both Armstrong and Pietrangelo are headstrong. And it’s pretty clear the whole ordeal is still too raw for either one to revisit in full detail.

I have no doubt that there are details that haven't been made public. But I don't think it is at all a rational jump to say that because there was animosity during negotiations that he doesn't want to talk about the day before a Cup Final game it suddenly means that his stated desire for a NMC was BS. Bo's quote (and Lebrun's provided color) certainly paints a picture of both sides refusing to budge from a position that is important to them.

Two parties being too headstrong to compromise would fully support the notion that the lack of a full NMC in each year of the contract was a deal killer for Petro and a full NMC for each year of the contract was a deal killer for Army. Petro arguing that he's the caliber of player that deserves such a clause and Army refusing to budge is exactly the type of thing that could lead to negotiations getting personal and ugly. That conversation/negotiation will always boil down to the GM having to concede that he values the freedom to move the player over the risk of killing a deal. It, by definition, means that the team will not commit to the player being able to retire as a lifelong member of the organization. That is going to generate hard feelings.

Our own GM confirmed that he wasn't willing to offer a full NMC for the duration of the contract. Friedman (who I trust more than any other national reporter) has repeatedly cited that as an issue in negotiations on his podcast. Petro got a full NMC for the duration of the contract from Vegas and has since praised how great their organization is to he and his family.

I genuinely don't understand how any of this stuff convinces you that he didn't actually care about the NMC.

Do I believe that his agent was leaking the NMC issue to try and impact negotiations? Absolutely. Does that mean it was BS? Absolutely not. The fact that Army went on record explaining why he wouldn't give a full NMC for the duration of the contract instead of refuting the claim tells me that it was absolutely a key issue in negotiations.

I’m not saying he didn’t want nmc. Everyone does. But the idea that nmc is the reason that he left isn’t supported by any evidence and doesn’t make any sense In the larger context.