Confirmed Signing with Link: [VGK] Alex Pietrangelo signs with the Golden Knights (7 years, $8.8M AAV)

[Mr Knies Guy]

Has there ever been a high profile NHL player to hit UFA and then sign with their original team?

Stamkos.

 

[Spektre]

Stamkos.

Stamkos didn’t make it to July 1st 2016 which is when free agency started. He was signed June 29th. That’s how he was able to sign an 8 year deal.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Stamkos didn’t make it to July 1st 2016 which is when free agency started. He was signed June 29th. That’s how he was able to sign an 8 year deal.

That’s because his original team wanted to make sure they took care of him. You don’t let prized players go UFA. Ever.

Which actually proves the previous point.

 

[Kaner9]

Damn Vegas looks stacked. Idk what St Louis is doing letting Pietrangelo get away like this.. You don't see this kinda defenseman hit the market every 5 years

 

[Mr Knies Guy]

Stamkos didn’t make it to July 1st 2016 which is when free agency started. He was signed June 29th. That’s how he was able to sign an 8 year deal.

And when did the free agent talking period start?

Are we forgetting now that the Leafs brass pitched him and scared him to kingdom come with their obsession and made him run back to TBay? I mean, who wouldn’t be honoured to meet the CEO of Canadian Tire??

Toronto Maple Leafs’ Sales Pitch Apparently Scared Off Steven Stamkos

 

[seanlinden]

Army offered protection to him. But Petro wanted more. More protection, more bonus, more money. He just wanted more.

Pretty much every player of AP's calibre gets full protection from a trade / waivers.

The protection offered by Armstrong would have prevented him from ending up in Edmonton, or whatever team is a bottom feeder in 5 years, it was not going to ensure that Pietrangelo stays in St. Louis with his family for the duration of the contract.

Yes, you can say "AP wanted more more more" ... but doing so assumes that anything less than a full NMC should have been part of the conversation. It wasn't for Stamkos, Kane, Toews, Tavares, Seguin, Skinner, Josi. For a guy with 3 kids at the time (now 4), not treating a full NMC as a matter of fact set the negotiations bad from the start.

 

[Spektre]

That’s because his original team wanted to make sure they took care of him. You don’t let prized players go UFA. Ever.

Which actually proves the previous point.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you aren’t allowed to claim some opinionated victory over the Pietrangelo situation.

The real world deals in facts. The Blues organization decided meeting Pietrangelo’s demands was a net negative. Your opinion either way doesn’t change the facts.

I have no idea what you do for a living. If you truly believe that you can make these decisions better than Army by all means call the Blues organization and try to setup an interview with Stillman.

There’s more facts that you’re not including in forming your armchair opinion. You don’t know all the details that happened during negotiations between Newport and the Blues. Yet you come to a conclusion that you would make better decisions than the sitting GM.

Let that sink in before you reply with more opinions. You are saying you would make better decisions yet don’t know the facts of the negotiations.

 

[GoldenSeal]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you aren’t allowed to claim some opinionated victory over the Pietrangelo situation.

The real world deals in facts. The Blues organization decided meeting Pietrangelo’s demands was a net negative. Your opinion either way doesn’t change the facts.

I have no idea what you do for a living. If you truly believe that you can make these decisions better than Army by all means call the Blues organization and try to setup an interview with Stillman.

There’s more facts that you’re not including in forming your armchair opinion. You don’t know all the details that happened during negotiations between Newport and the Blues. Yet you come to a conclusion that you would make better decisions than the sitting GM.

Let that sink in before you reply with more opinions. You are saying you would make better decisions yet don’t know the facts of the negotiations.

Are you saying that Army would have given him 8x8 guaranteed money with a full NMC? Because if not, then I don’t see where I’m wrong.

You DO NOT let your Offensive 1D Cup Winning Captain go UFA. EVER.

Yes it’s opinion but it’s the opinion of someone who would have taken care of Pietrangelo with the -same- terms Vegas gave for 800k/yr -less- money.

The truth is Army wasn’t going to do that and no matter how many people want to blame anyone else, the fault lies with Army. He let an player who earned stability leave and packed the team with quantity with no-movement clauses at money that could hamstring us down the line. I’m not ok with that and any Blues fan shouldn’t be either.

 

[Spektre]

Are you saying that Army would have given him 8x8 guaranteed money with a full NMC? Because if not, then I don’t see where I’m wrong.

Yes it’s opinion but it’s the opinion of someone who would have taken care of Pietrangelo with the -same- terms Vegas gave for 800k/yr -less- money.

The truth is Army wasn’t going to do that and no matter how many people want to blame anyone else, the fault lies with Army. He let an player who earned stability leave and packed the team with quantity with no-movement clauses at money that could hamstring us down the line. I’m not ok with that and any Blues fan shouldn’t be either.

You are still only stating an opinion which I am trying my best to show you how it’s different from facts. Another fact not opinion is Pietrangelo himself said nobody was to blame for a deal not happening with the Blues.

Again, that’s a fact, not some random opinion.

I’m all for people having opinions and voicing opinions but you are presuming your opinion is correct and there’s no other opposing opinions allowed, and again, doing so without all the facts.

You haven’t even set any kind of opinionated terms that would constitute a net positive vs a net negative to the Blues organization with the departure of Pietrangelo. If the Blues make the playoffs the next 5 years in a row, or win a Cup, or the organization has a net profit etc.. These are some of the real world details that will be viewed by ownership including countless others.

Do you have a detailed list of goals the organization must reach in the next 5 years vs net negative aspects that would constitute not acceptable????

 

[Total Bender]

He gone... time to move on fellas.

 

[razor ray]

Late to the party here but Vegas has:

1.) A winning culture
2.) Great ownership
3.) Great facilities
4.) Crazed fan base
5.) O% state income tax

I’m not at all surprised he signed w Vegas. Stone said “The (NHL) players are all talking about Vegas” before he signed long term.

 

[Stelmacki]

Damn Vegas looks stacked. Idk what St Louis is doing letting Pietrangelo get away like this.. You don't see this kinda defenseman hit the market every 5 years

This particular defenseman wanted to see the market.

 

[GoldenSeal]

You are still only stating an opinion which I am trying my best to show you how it’s different from facts. Another fact not opinion is Pietrangelo himself said nobody was to blame for a deal not happening with the Blues.

Again, that’s a fact, not some random opinion.

I’m all for people having opinions and voicing opinions but you are presuming your opinion is correct and there’s no other opposing opinions allowed, and again, doing so without all the facts.

You haven’t even set any kind of opinionated terms that would constitute a net positive vs a net negative to the Blues organization with the departure of Pietrangelo. If the Blues make the playoffs the next 5 years in a row, or win a Cup, or the organization has a net profit etc.. These are some of the real world details that will be viewed by ownership including countless others.

Do you have a detailed list of goals the organization must reach in the next 5 years vs net negative aspects that would constitute not acceptable????

Doug Armstrong, is that you?

 

[seanlinden]

The truth is Army wasn’t going to do that and no matter how many people want to blame anyone else, the fault lies with Army. He let an player who earned stability leave and packed the team with quantity with no-movement clauses at money that could hamstring us down the line. I’m not ok with that and any Blues fan shouldn’t be either.

I think it's important to consider that when talking about blame, or fault, whomever you assign that to, you are accusing of wrongdoing.

On the surface, this wasn't a "it's time for the player to move onto greener pastures" situation. This wasn't Taylor Hall in New Jersey, where you've got a player in his prime, who won an MVP a couple of years earlier, stuck on a rebuilding team. This was a #1 team's #1 defenceman, coming off a cup win, at age 30.

So the question is -- did either party / side "do wrong" here (thereby earning blame/fault)?

Pietrangelo
On AP's side, on the surface it seems that negotiations never really got off the ground. According to Armstrong, various pitches were made with respect to overall dollars & years. According to AP's side, structure (notably the full NMC) was more important than what the final dollar amount ended up with.

You look around the league at all the players who have full NMCs; and the list is not short -- in fact there are over 50 players this year who have full NMC protection, and of the 24 of them who make $8m or more, only 6 of them (Trouba, Wheeler, Backstrom, Kucherov, Bobrovsky & Doughty) have a situation where there is some trade tolerance in the final few years. So you can certainly make the case that it was the expectation.

I don't think you can fault AP for making this a baseline expectation -- especially as somebody with 3 kids when negotiations started, and 4 when negotiations ended.

Armstrong
On the flip side, you can argue that of these 24 players, there's probably 10 of them where the teams wish they didn't have that full hard-stop protection. You can argue that in general, giving an 8 year NMC to a 30 year old player is not a good idea -- as it screams "pay for what you've done, rather than pay for what you're going to do"; and may be detrimental to building a "team-first" mentality & attitude. As somebody who has a long tenure as the Blues GM, he probably looked at this as a move he would likely regret. The decision to hold firm is something that most GMs probably wouldn't do.

Was Armstrong wrong for holding his ground on the issue? Maybe.
If his goal was to win a popularity contest,then yes, he failed miserably. If his goal is to put together another cup, ultimately, the answer to that will come in the form of the success the Blues have post-Pietrangelo, as well as how Pietrangelo ages.

If losing him for nothing (although I do not believe there was ever really a trade possibility post-cup because he had the NTC) and replacing his cap hit with a far inferior defenceman in Torrey Krug is going to spell the beginning of a downward spiral for the Blues, then yes, Armstrong will be blamed for botching the Pietrangelo negotiation. This will be exacerbated if Vegas and AP do great things.

If letting him walk and getting a puckmover like Krug to pair with Parayko leads to a new (or continued) stretch of success -- then it will be viewed as Army being the shrewd GM who didn't cave to the pressure of signing a star player for a deal he knew he'd come to regret (unlike most GMs who would sign the star player), the guy who continued the path of team before player, and perpetuated the culture that led them to the cup last year. If AP goes downhill in Vegas, he'll look even smarter.

 

[rumrokh]

I think it's important to consider that when talking about blame, or fault, whomever you assign that to, you are accusing of wrongdoing.

On the surface, this wasn't a "it's time for the player to move onto greener pastures" situation. This wasn't Taylor Hall in New Jersey, where you've got a player in his prime, who won an MVP a couple of years earlier, stuck on a rebuilding team. This was a #1 team's #1 defenceman, coming off a cup win, at age 30.

So the question is -- did either party / side "do wrong" here (thereby earning blame/fault)?

Pietrangelo
On AP's side, on the surface it seems that negotiations never really got off the ground. According to Armstrong, various pitches were made with respect to overall dollars & years. According to AP's side, structure (notably the full NMC) was more important than what the final dollar amount ended up with.

You look around the league at all the players who have full NMCs; and the list is not short -- in fact there are over 50 players this year who have full NMC protection, and of the 24 of them who make $8m or more, only 6 of them (Trouba, Wheeler, Backstrom, Kucherov, Bobrovsky & Doughty) have a situation where there is some trade tolerance in the final few years. So you can certainly make the case that it was the expectation.

I don't think you can fault AP for making this a baseline expectation -- especially as somebody with 3 kids when negotiations started, and 4 when negotiations ended.

Armstrong
On the flip side, you can argue that of these 24 players, there's probably 10 of them where the teams wish they didn't have that full hard-stop protection. You can argue that in general, giving an 8 year NMC to a 30 year old player is not a good idea -- as it screams "pay for what you've done, rather than pay for what you're going to do"; and may be detrimental to building a "team-first" mentality & attitude. As somebody who has a long tenure as the Blues GM, he probably looked at this as a move he would likely regret.

The decision to hold firm is something that most GMs probably wouldn't do.

Was Armstrong wrong for holding his ground on the issue? Maybe. Ultimately, the answer to that will come in the form of the success the Blues have post-Pietrangelo, as well as how Pietrangelo ages.

If losing him for nothing (although I do not believe there was ever really a trade possibility post-cup because he had the NTC) and replacing his cap hit with a far inferior defenceman in Torrey Krug is going to spell the beginning of a downward spiral for the Blues, then yes, Armstrong will be blamed for botching the Pietrangelo negotiation. This will be exacerbated if Vegas and AP do great things.

If letting him walk and getting a puckmover like Krug to pair with Parayko leads to a new (or continued) stretch of success -- then it will be viewed as Army being the shrewd GM who didn't cave to the pressure of signing a star player for a deal he knew he'd come to regret (unlike most GMs who would sign the star player), the guy who continued the path of team before player, and perpetuated the culture that led them to the cup last year. If AP goes downhill in Vegas, he'll look even smarter.

Don't forget the role of Pietrangelo's agent/agency. It simplifies things to roll that into one entity with Pietrangelo, but it's an agency Armstrong is going to have to continue to deal with even with Pietrangelo gone. And if Pietrangelo's statements about prioritizing staying with the Blues and being "caught off guard" by the Krug signing are completely honest, then it seems like it's ultimately not fair to boil it down to two total parties. Your evaluation is functionally fine, but I think the Blame Waters are a lot muddier than this.

 

[Kuznetsnow]

What makes it stink out of St. Louis is how much cap they committed to Faulk (6.5), Krug (6.5), Scandella (3.275), Bozak (5), Schenn (6.5). Many of those players got partial NTCs as well.

That's a bunch of good (Krug, Schenn) to ok (Bozak, Scandella) players eating up a ton of cap over a lot of years. None of them are gamechangers. Sign a competent 1.25 mil bottom pairing D instead of Scandella and you can afford Pietrangelo over Krug or Faulk (absolutely terrible extension on top of questionable trade) and not even notice the difference on the bottom pairing (where Perunovich/Gunnarsson could already be pushing or the role).

Pietrangelo at under 10, especially at under 9 should have been a no brainer. Carlson was signed for 8x8 after the caps won the cup (even though he wasn't the captain and while great during the cup run wasn't near Conn Smythe caliber) and you won't find a Caps fan regretting that contract. Yet pretty sure any of us would Carlson for Pietrangelo at his Vegas contract (locker room sentiment/chemistry aside) in an instant. Now St. Louis is left with a bunch of players who if not overpaid are not discounted in the least and whose ceilings are very well defined. Unless Parayko becomes a top 5 D that blueline is much more of a hold the fort type than a game changing team strength now.

 

[stl76]

It's telling that most of the recent posts in this thread have come from Blues fans. Time to move on.

Nothing but love and respect for Alex Pietrangelo, wish him all the best in Vegas (except when they play the Blues).

 

[Spektre]

Doug Armstrong, is that you?

I'm just trying to get you to show reasons and variables for your opinion vs just thinking "I'm right because it's my opinion". It's never as simple as you think it is because I'm sure Army, Stillman, and others do put together scenarios with goals over the next 5 years etc..

 

[Colt55]

It's telling that most of the recent posts in this thread have come from Blues fans. Time to move on.

Nothing but love and respect for Alex Pietrangelo, wish him all the best in Vegas (except when they play the Blues).

Agreed. Its time for a clean break.

Break the wrist and walk away

 

[Vektor]

Doug Armstrong, is that you?

Pietrangelo signing in Vegas is going to keep you up at night for years isn't it? Move on buddy.

 

[seanlinden]

Don't forget the role of Pietrangelo's agent/agency. It simplifies things to roll that into one entity with Pietrangelo, but it's an agency Armstrong is going to have to continue to deal with even with Pietrangelo gone. And if Pietrangelo's statements about prioritizing staying with the Blues and being "caught off guard" by the Krug signing are completely honest, then it seems like it's ultimately not fair to boil it down to two total parties. Your evaluation is functionally fine, but I think the Blame Waters are a lot muddier than this.

I cannot lump Don Meehan into the "Darren Ferris" group of difficult to deal with agents. He & Pat Brisson represent the biggest names in the game; and have done so for the better part of 15-20 years. Heck, Meehan himself Meehan represents Bozak, Dunn, O'Reilly, and Robert Thomas. He's an old school agent much like Armstrong is an old school GM. The two have been dealing with each other for years.

A guy like Meehan doesn't get into "conflicts" with GMs -- it's not only a disservice to the client he represents in that negotiation, but a disservice to the other 50 clients on his roster.

Ultimately, AP & Meehan would have had a discussion long before UFA (likely right after the cup win) about what he needed to get on his next contract.

If AP didn't go into that conversation with wanting a full NMC non-negotiable, I'm sure Meehan explained to him the risks/realities of what could happen if he doesn't push for one. He probably explained to AP that Armstrong has never done one, and that making that a non-negotiable may ultimately mean he has to leave St. Louis to get it; however that if Armstrong was ever going to give one, AP would be the guy that gets it.

However, he'd be better off to have his choice of where to go with your 2 year old kids in a year, then risk waking up one morning 5 years from now in the middle of January to find that you've been traded and are leaving your 7 year olds plus whatever other kids you have. A partial NTC/NMC will ensure you're not going to Edmonton or Winnipeg; and ensure that you're not going to a bottom-feeding team either, but it may or may not be where you want to go.

Guys trust their agents (99% of the time) to have their best interests in mind, not necessarily the most money; and I'm sure that AP left that meeting wanting one.

You can't fault the agent for looking out for his clients best interests.

 

[rumrokh]

I cannot lump Don Meehan into the "Darren Ferris" group of difficult to deal with agents. He & Pat Brisson represent the biggest names in the game; and have done so for the better part of 15-20 years. Heck, Meehan himself Meehan represents Bozak, Dunn, O'Reilly, and Robert Thomas. He's an old school agent much like Armstrong is an old school GM. The two have been dealing with each other for years.

A guy like Meehan doesn't get into "conflicts" with GMs -- it's not only a disservice to the client he represents in that negotiation, but a disservice to the other 50 clients on his roster.

Ultimately, AP & Meehan would have had a discussion long before UFA (likely right after the cup win) about what he needed to get on his next contract.

If AP didn't go into that conversation with wanting a full NMC non-negotiable, I'm sure Meehan explained to him the risks/realities of what could happen if he doesn't push for one. He probably explained to AP that Armstrong has never done one, and that making that a non-negotiable may ultimately mean he has to leave St. Louis to get it; however that if Armstrong was ever going to give one, AP would be the guy that gets it.

However, he'd be better off to have his choice of where to go with your 2 year old kids in a year, then risk waking up one morning 5 years from now in the middle of January to find that you've been traded and are leaving your 7 year olds plus whatever other kids you have. A partial NTC/NMC will ensure you're not going to Edmonton or Winnipeg; and ensure that you're not going to a bottom-feeding team either, but it may or may not be where you want to go.

Guys trust their agents (99% of the time) to have their best interests in mind, not necessarily the most money; and I'm sure that AP left that meeting wanting one.

You can't fault the agent for looking out for his clients best interests.

First, I never intended to paint a picture of conflict between an agent and a GM - there's a reason I didn't use those words, but my message was too short, so I apologize for not being clearer.

Second, if all of this is accurate, then how could Pietrangelo have been caught off guard by the Krug signing? Your confident description of their interactions makes it sound like it would be automatic for him to prepare Pietrangelo for what to expect. Or are you confident Pietrangelo is simply spinning his situation to the media?

I'm not saying "it's the agent's fault," or anything like that. I'm saying that from what we've heard directly from Armstrong and Pietrangelo, there are enough contradictions to open the door more than just a crack towards the agent's involvement as a factor. Again, that doesn't mean, "it's the agent's fault," but it could reasonably change any given apparent fault your analysis stands to place at the feet of Armstrong or Pietrangelo.