Confirmed with Link: Resigned BORTUZZO 2 Years 950K AAVk
- Thread starter Linkens Mastery
- Start date
execwrite1
Registered User
- Mar 30, 2018
- 1,461
- 1,410
I've said as much before. It would be an insult to ask DP57 to take a pay-cut. He's deserving of another 4 x $4M contract, minimum (if not the Joe Pavelski contract)...but I could see a situation where Army says to him "we'd love to have you, but we're hamstrung due to Kyrou/Thomas/ROR raises coming up" and basically telling him he's been priced off of the team; only for Perron to take a lesser contract because he's as Blue as they come.
Moose and Squirrel
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2021
- 3,685
- 2,703
I’m amazed at the people on this board who fall in love with certain players and then say if they don’t resign them I’m done with this team. I’m a St.Louis Blues fan. As much as I like certain players, they all come and go. We have to look at this team going forward as well as what it looks like right now. I have advocated trading ROR in the off season to Calgary for Matthew Tkachuk. I was shouted down on this board by many. I love ROR and what he did for us to win the cup, but I don’t want to give him a big contract and see him getting old and slower before our eyes and those last couple or years being painful. Give me Tkachuk in his prime years if I’m going to pay big dollars. Can you see a team with Kyrou, Thomas, Tkachuk and Buchnevich going forward. Looks pretty good to me. We have enough long term contracts that are going to be very questionable in the later years with Krug, Parayko, Schenn and Faulk. The money to have to pay Kyrou and Thomas is going to have to come from somewhere. Everyone will say Tarasenkos money but what if he decides to stay. There is no way that the Blues can keep ROR with a new long term contract and Tarasenko with a new long term contract along with some of the boat anchor contracts we have now and pay Kyrou and Thomas. Some hard decisions will have to be made.
Majorityof1
Registered User
So you would rather root for a soulless corporation than the people who give it life? The St. Louis Blues are a corporation. I root for the people, the players and the coaches. If I no longer like the people who run the company, why would I continue to root for it? Besides, nobody said they'd stop rooting for them if they didn't sign Perron. I said I'd stop rooting for them if they took advantage of his loyalty and signed him to a overly team-friendly deal.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,137
- 13,094
Tarasenko's deal expires at the same time as ROR's. He can't force the Blues to extend him even if he decides he wants to stay. ROR is 10 months older than Tarasenko and is less reliant on skating ability than Tarasenko is. I don't expect ROR to age worse than Tarasenko, but I expect them to require similar term to stick around. Contracts being similar, I extend ROR over Tarasenko with basically no hesitation. Keeping Tarasenko beyond 2023 isn't remotely on par with keeping Thomas, Kyrou, and ROR.
It is not a given that we will extend ROR and I don't think it is completely crazy to explore trading him. But I don't think there is any chance that the organization would prioritize extending Tarasenko over ROR. They named ROR captain over Tarasenko after just his 2nd season here and there has to be some leftover frustration in the organization over Tarasenko's trade request. On top of that, ROR plays a bigger role on this team than Tarasenko does and neither of our other top 6 caliber centers have anything like the defensive talent ROR does. If Tarasenko winds up in St. Louis beyond ROR, I am confident that it will be a result of us not being willing to meet ROR's asking price rather than signing Tarasenko and eliminating the ability to meet ROR's asking price.
By the way add the Binnington boat anchor contract to the others and it may the worst of all of them. His play has been atrocious the last month. Maybe it will get better as it can’t get much worse. Sadly it appears that this team needs a shake up. If it continues on its current path I doubt they will make the playoffs. Hope I’m wrong but recent play is not good. Perron and Sundquist have been bad so those of you who want to give Perron another four years at 4 million +, I just don’t understand. And before I get jumped on Perron has been one of my favorite players since he returned. I just think you have to take emotion out of contract decisions and look at them objectively.
But if Perron himself agreed to that deal, that’s an extremely silly reason to stop rooting for a team. How are you gonna care about a player’s own contract more than they do?
Majorityof1
Registered User
The people who are the most loyal should be the ones you treat the best, not take advantage of their loyalty. A sub $4M contract would be taking advantage of his loyalty to a ridiculous degree. I have no desire to root for people who would do that. Some people for whatever reason do things against their own best interest. Does that mean we should stand by while others take advantage of them? Worse, do we cheer for the one taking advantage of them?
Silly or not, its my decision. If I decide to stop rooting for a team, who are you to tall me I'm wrong?
Moose and Squirrel
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2021
- 3,685
- 2,703
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Perron is absolutely deserving of a 4x4 deal. But I’ll ask a question: If Perron’s desire to stay here is strong enough that he’s okay accepting a 2x3 contract, is it really that much of an insult to him? I have a hard time saying it’s insulting for a team to get a player signed to a team friendly contact if the player himself is okay with it.
Majorityof1
Registered User
I highly doubt any player, even the most team-friendly guy, is going in an volunteering to take a pay cut. If it comes out that Perron went to Armstrong and said I want $3M, then whatever. I'm sure there are other situations where I'd accept it. More likely though, Perron wanted his current salary or more and then would get negotiated down a $3M contract. I have no problem with a team friendly deal. $3M for a guy who put up 60+ multiple times on his last contract is beyond team-friendly. $5M is team friendly. $3M is grand larceny. Even if you know a player will take less, there is a certain point you stop negotiating down, imo, if you want to remain ethical.
BlueMed
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2019
- 2,804
- 3,328
That doesn't make any sense. If the Blues sign Perron for 3M, then that would have meant that Perron wanted that. Contracts are mutually agreed upon by the GM and player, not what fans think the player deserve to be paid and certainly not for past performances, which in some cases don't necessarily indicate how a player is going to play moving forward.
EastVillageBlues
Registered User
- Feb 18, 2019
- 1,026
- 612
Right, we still don't have much depth on the right side. And he has performed admirably from a bottom pairing role. I don't think it's possible to hate on this contract.
Majorityof1
Registered User
This unrealistic scenario has generated far more discussion than it warrants. One last time. If Perron is so invested in the city of St. Louis that he will accept any contract to stay here, then yes, that is his decision. But it gives the Blues a ridiculous amount of bargaining power. Anytime there is ridiculously unequal bargaining power, I think the side with all the power has an ethical mandate not to take too much advantage of that. Let's give an extreme example. Imagine a pharmaceutical company has a patent on a life saving drug that people need to take in order to live. They can charge almost anything and people have to buy it as their life literally depends on it. However, almost everyone agrees is it wrong for them to price gouge these people far beyond a reasonable profit after their costs and investment in R+D. This is not nearly that extreme, but hopefully illustrates my stance.
In my opinion, I think any company owes something to a worker who has been loyal to the company. If they continuously work long hours for less pay than they deserve, the company has an ethical obligation to make it right with them when they can, even if they are willing to continue working for less. Sure, you can skin as much as you can from every employee and then kick them to the curb when there is no skin left. However, that will lose ME as a customer and will probably have an effect on negotiations with future prospective employees.
That is explaining it far more than it merits. You don't have to agree with it. I honestly don't care. I'm done defending it. To me, if you don't understand it, that says much more about you than it does about me or the topic at hand.
Last edited:
Thank you for saying this. I generally agree with your position. I think it's admirable and wish more companies took it. My only hesitation in this instance is the salary cap. In most other scenarios you are agreeing to less profit to reward those who enabled it, which I am all for always. But in cap world paying Perron more means less for Husso or someone else who we may need more than Perron at this point. And while as a fan I want us to do right by Perron, I also want us to win and paying too much to him would lessen our chances to do so.
I suspect the Perron situation is going to be one of those where both sides are reasonable, and it just doesn't make sense to re-sign him for fair value. He'll go elsewhere on a longer term deal than Armstrong can do. I don't see much way that Perron fits with the Blues cap situation, at his fair value and projected production. Its a tough situation, but I see him leaving with no hard feelings on either side.
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
Perron is a personal favorite, I think he'd be a natural in the Federko role after his playing is done. I don't disagree in general about morality around unequal bargaining power. But when we are crying outrage at someone getting 3 million dollars versus 4 million dollars in a single calendar year we need to bring in some real world context. To equate in principle the suggestion of Perron getting possibly fewer millions for pay during a single calendar year to a Martin Shkreli drug victim is to make an absurdity of argument itself. One is obviously outrage worthy and one obviously isn't. Moreover the analogy is awful; playing for the Blues would be analogized to the life-saving drug Perron needs in order to survive. Beyond that, Perron is part of a union that collectively bargained the free agency rules and those rules are designed to give the player the leverage if they are an unrestricted free agent, and nobody is stripping Perron of that leverage.
The reason he might get offered fewer millions is that Perron is at the most awkward inflection point in his play and his age during a contract year. We honestly have to see how the year finishes before we know what we are seeing. There are just too many unknowns about his play and moving pieces with the rest of the roster before knowing what the Blues can or should offer Perron. Perron might legitimately value staying with the Blues if it means taking less than he knows he could get on the open market, because I feel like that guy just wants to win. He might feel very comfortable that he'll know what his role is on the team going forward and think he can win here. Or he might want the biggest payday. I will support him and be on his side whatever he tries to do because he's earned that loyalty and because his union collectively bargained for his rights when he reaches free agency.
The reason he might get offered fewer millions is that Perron is at the most awkward inflection point in his play and his age during a contract year. We honestly have to see how the year finishes before we know what we are seeing. There are just too many unknowns about his play and moving pieces with the rest of the roster before knowing what the Blues can or should offer Perron. Perron might legitimately value staying with the Blues if it means taking less than he knows he could get on the open market, because I feel like that guy just wants to win. He might feel very comfortable that he'll know what his role is on the team going forward and think he can win here. Or he might want the biggest payday. I will support him and be on his side whatever he tries to do because he's earned that loyalty and because his union collectively bargained for his rights when he reaches free agency.
BlueMed
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2019
- 2,804
- 3,328
I understand where you're coming from, but your argument is economically flawed on so many levels. I don't respect you any less, but you could have just said "the Blues owe Perron moving forward for being loyal and asking for less money in the past." It wouldn't make your stance any more valid because economics decisions don't integrate past value into present decisions, but it wouldn't be as off-base as comparing Perron's UFA status to a life-dependent pharmaceutical patent. That's purely your heart talking.
Majorityof1
Registered User
It might be economically flawed, but it is not flawed from a business perspective. An economist labels labor as a cost and treats it like raw materials. That is bad business. Labor is not a fungible resource. Each person is different. The output you get from even the same unit may even vary based on how you treat them. They can make independent decisions about how much effort it puts out for you, or even if they want to work for you at all. If you treat your employees poorly, even if they agree to it, you will not get the best out of them. You will also be less effective at attracting and retaining other employees.
Besides, $3M is below what Perron will be worth going forward. On a short to mid-term contract he will still be a 40-50 point guy who is solid defensively. Sunny is almost making that much and he has never scored 35 points and is only on pace for 32 this season. You don't pay for past performance but past performance is the best indicator of future performance. Perron is on pace for 55 points. Tofolli is on pace for 2-3 more points and just was traded for a 1st++ because he is a steal at $4.25M. There is absolutely no comparable you can find for Perron that would say $3M is a justified offer of future performance.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,935
- 5,725
I hear what you are saying and I don’t agree with our exploitive economy, but Perron may put a higher value on things other than money.
Personally, if I could make 1/5 as much as Perron, I would have no need to worry about money. I would choose to work for an employer that I prefer in a place I prefer, with the people I prefer. The money would be pretty far down the list.
That’s not to say Perron doesn’t want to get paid at a higher level. He very well may want that. He certainly doesn’t owe the Blues anything. If anything it’s the other way around. Given his previous contract.
He may also want to finish his career here and knows that a pay cut from what he could expect on the open market is what it will take. Maybe he is ok with that. Maybe taking a cut guarantees a post playing career with the Blues that he values.
who knows.
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
Perron is one of the incredibly few in society lucky enough to have a union whose collective bargaining power has succeeded in skyrocketing employee salaries. In a few months, he will get to enjoy the fruits of his collectively bargained rights. He will have market choices to make millions. This is an incredibly fortunate situation Perron is in. What a truly rare stroke of luck for a person we support!
In 1990-1991, there were six NHL players who made over 1M: Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Chelios and Bourque. 1 million that season was worth about 2.1M now. There are far more than six players over the 2.1 million mark today. Perron will be one of them.
It's close to obscene that correct concern over an exploitative economy that has seen all the wealth flow to the top would center on this situation.
In 1990-1991, there were six NHL players who made over 1M: Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Chelios and Bourque. 1 million that season was worth about 2.1M now. There are far more than six players over the 2.1 million mark today. Perron will be one of them.
It's close to obscene that correct concern over an exploitative economy that has seen all the wealth flow to the top would center on this situation.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,935
- 5,725
I will gladly talk about our exploitive and wildly corrupt economy. But when it comes to people making upper 5% income levels, I don’t have any real sympathy financially speaking. Perron is in the 1% category, so yeah.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Kentucky Oaks (Gr. 1) - USA NetworkWagers: 6Staked: $1,140.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-