Vote: How do you feel about how the Blues handled Petro?
- Thread starter Stealth JD
- Start date
Halak Ness Monster
Registered User
They let their MVP leave and they used his money on a worse player that doesn’t really fit. They didn’t even get the second best d-man that moved this free agency period IMO.
Only thing to like is that they tried to replace the offensive production. They forgot the defensive side, though, and wasted most of the available money in doing so.
Only thing to like is that they tried to replace the offensive production. They forgot the defensive side, though, and wasted most of the available money in doing so.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,880
- 14,843
I'm more neutral. Would've preferred that we kept Pietrangelo, but that contract is a little rich for me. I don't blame Army or Petro for how negotiations went. I think it's pretty clear that Petro made his requests known early and Army knew we were never going to meet them, and since Pietrangelo never dropped Newport like some others did, he knew they weren't going to budge. It is what it is.
Why should we assume he’d sign with the NMC. Pietro’s side has said he also wanted structure with salary paid as bonus money to make it trade proof and more difficult to buy out. I personally don’t believe the NMC alone would have gotten it done.
Armstrong handed Petros negotiations in the worse possible way. Army should've just gave Petro what he wanted. But i will say this both sides are to blame
I'll be curious if any info comes out, because of rumors of bad blood between Petro and Army. Also Petro being upset Army was signing players and not him. I'll be curious if any of that comes to light.
I'll be curious if any info comes out, because of rumors of bad blood between Petro and Army. Also Petro being upset Army was signing players and not him. I'll be curious if any of that comes to light.
ort
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2012
- 1,044
- 1,090
You gotta sign him. You have to get it done. We could have and should have topped the offer he got from Vegas.
Everything about this sucks and a huge post-cup buzzkill. It's a ****ing bummer.
I had been on the edge ion cancelling cable and becoming much less of an avid hockey fan and this seals the deal.
I'm cancelling cable and will be going from watching 99% of Blues games to probably 10%. This Petro incident isn't what caused that to happen, but it definitely re-affirmed my decision... made it a lot easier.
Everything about this sucks and a huge post-cup buzzkill. It's a ****ing bummer.
I had been on the edge ion cancelling cable and becoming much less of an avid hockey fan and this seals the deal.
I'm cancelling cable and will be going from watching 99% of Blues games to probably 10%. This Petro incident isn't what caused that to happen, but it definitely re-affirmed my decision... made it a lot easier.
Loaded question. We don’t know what it woulda taken. We just know he always wanted more.
m1a2lt
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2009
- 1,376
- 1,793
Also, with Nevada tax free, Petro receives an approximate $600k more a year, so for the Blues to match, we are looking at ~$9.4m/yr. And when a team like Toronto who is known to throw huge contracts with signing bonuses and NMCs and state that they weren’t even close in the negotiations makes you wonder.
mike1320
Registered User
I still can't believe that everyone actually thinks that Army signed Faulk without knowing that there was a really good chance that Petro wanted to be a free agent all along. That makes zero sense and Stillman would have fired him on the spot.
Oberyn
Prince of Dorne
- Mar 27, 2011
- 14,422
- 3,980
Both options are too extreme for me, I find myself somewhere in the middle. I don't blame Pietrangelo for seeking security but I can also understand the perspective from Armstrong and the Blues FO. There wasn't enough compromise made on either side which unfortunately lead to Pietrangelo's departure.
DeuceNine
Like You Read About
At some point you can't let your employees dictate how your business is run. He went to Vegas because it's a new look, good team, and no income tax. Full stop.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,222
- 8,632
The die was cast ~15 months ago, when Armstrong pushed Pietrangelo off on an extension citing uncertainty and then did the trade-and-sign for Faulk, sight unseen, extended Schenn shortly after, then extended Scandella in the middle of the halt in play when there was gobs of uncertainty. Everything else has been window dressing to try and pretty up that choice.
We're hoping Parayko is going to fully step into Pietrangelo's spot. I don't think that's a given.
We've got no clue who's going to step into Parayko's spot. It won't be Mikkola. It sure as hell won't be Krug.
Parayko is not going to fill both his spot and Pietrangelo's spot. Parayko + Krug aren't filling that either.
We have nothing in the system that remotely replaces Pietrangelo, short-term or long-term. We've seen how this worked in the past.
You can think back to times in the past where we've had an upper-tier defenseman and we've lost them and tried to replace with someone who was merely "supposed to be fairly good." It didn't work then, I don't know why people think it's going to work now.
But this also sends a clear, unambiguous message from Armstrong to every other player on this team and every player around the league thinking of coming to this team: every one of you are expendable, no matter what you've done here or what you've done elsewhere. You will be here on the terms I and only I choose or you can leave like Pietrangelo did. There will be no special favors, there will be no special considerations, because none of you are special and I'll replace any one of you when I decide, how I decide.
I don't see how we're better now. I don't see how we're better going forward. I can see a flurry of moves that ships out yet more future pieces from an already-depleted prospect system to try and salvage something in the present, and I can see at least two someones hit the end of their contract and say you know what, I saw what you did with Pietrangelo - I'm not playing that game and they walk for elsewhere and leave us holding the bag.
This should have been done around July 1 and Pietrangelo should be finishing out the rest of his career here. He's not. I don't think he's going to be the one that pays the price for that.
We're hoping Parayko is going to fully step into Pietrangelo's spot. I don't think that's a given.
We've got no clue who's going to step into Parayko's spot. It won't be Mikkola. It sure as hell won't be Krug.
Parayko is not going to fill both his spot and Pietrangelo's spot. Parayko + Krug aren't filling that either.
We have nothing in the system that remotely replaces Pietrangelo, short-term or long-term. We've seen how this worked in the past.
You can think back to times in the past where we've had an upper-tier defenseman and we've lost them and tried to replace with someone who was merely "supposed to be fairly good." It didn't work then, I don't know why people think it's going to work now.
But this also sends a clear, unambiguous message from Armstrong to every other player on this team and every player around the league thinking of coming to this team: every one of you are expendable, no matter what you've done here or what you've done elsewhere. You will be here on the terms I and only I choose or you can leave like Pietrangelo did. There will be no special favors, there will be no special considerations, because none of you are special and I'll replace any one of you when I decide, how I decide.
I don't see how we're better now. I don't see how we're better going forward. I can see a flurry of moves that ships out yet more future pieces from an already-depleted prospect system to try and salvage something in the present, and I can see at least two someones hit the end of their contract and say you know what, I saw what you did with Pietrangelo - I'm not playing that game and they walk for elsewhere and leave us holding the bag.
This should have been done around July 1 and Pietrangelo should be finishing out the rest of his career here. He's not. I don't think he's going to be the one that pays the price for that.
The very simple reality is that a full NMC and signing bonuses are in the contract with a player of the calibre of Pietrangelo. If the GM wants them out of the contract then the price goes up.
The majority seen Josi as a fair comparison a year ago; he got $9m, full NMC and $34m in signing bonuses. The economic situation changed where $9m became unreasonable, but the NMC and signing bonuses aspects don't. A matter of a few weeks before free agency opens and we're still offering an AAV starting with a seven and not even giving a full NMC? I think you have to be incredibly naïve to think that level of hardball isn't going to affect the relationship and alienate a player.
Yes, it's a business and players shouldn't get hurt feelings over good faith negotiations. I just don't see the negotiations as particualrly good faith... even as how Armstrong laid them out.
If Armstrong had made the final offer the week after we had been eliminated? I'd say we should have went further, but I wouldn't have seen a major issue with how he negotiated the deal.
The majority seen Josi as a fair comparison a year ago; he got $9m, full NMC and $34m in signing bonuses. The economic situation changed where $9m became unreasonable, but the NMC and signing bonuses aspects don't. A matter of a few weeks before free agency opens and we're still offering an AAV starting with a seven and not even giving a full NMC? I think you have to be incredibly naïve to think that level of hardball isn't going to affect the relationship and alienate a player.
Yes, it's a business and players shouldn't get hurt feelings over good faith negotiations. I just don't see the negotiations as particualrly good faith... even as how Armstrong laid them out.
If Armstrong had made the final offer the week after we had been eliminated? I'd say we should have went further, but I wouldn't have seen a major issue with how he negotiated the deal.
Note Worthy
History Made
I assume you'll reconsider. The team just won the damn Cup less than two years ago. I understand this won't be that same team but I honestly can't believe some people are willing to abandon a franchise that just won the Cup. Of course, you do you and whatever makes you happy. It's just confusing to me.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
I don’t know that I can give a true opinion on this because there’s still some critical missing pieces. I want to know what happened leading up to the Faulk trade.
But in the grand scheme of things, I think it’s a pretty poor choice to let your best and most important player go because you aren’t willing to give a NMC and significant signing bonuses. That’s the standard for players of his caliber. If you’re not willing to do that, then that’s fine. But you better be prepared to reap the consequences of intentionally making your team worse.
But in the grand scheme of things, I think it’s a pretty poor choice to let your best and most important player go because you aren’t willing to give a NMC and significant signing bonuses. That’s the standard for players of his caliber. If you’re not willing to do that, then that’s fine. But you better be prepared to reap the consequences of intentionally making your team worse.
Last edited:
Vektor
Registered User
- Jun 11, 2018
- 530
- 711
Thanks I'll wear the title proudly! I mean cmon. How can anyone be around for all the years the Blues let us down and then abandon them two years after they win the cup because they didn't sign a player?
Note Worthy
History Made
I don't know if I can blame one side more than the other. I think Armstrong should be willing to bend on NMC in rare situations of your top player(s) like Pietrangelo. At the same time, it's starting to look like Pietrangelo may have had one foot out the door. Maybe he did want to sign here but it's also clear that he was just as fine moving on too. And that's his right, good for him. But that also puts Armstrong in a position where he has to make a move for someone like Krug.
So...it's tough to lay blame on any one side. It just didn't work out. It definitely sucks. This will be a worse team as it sits with Pietragnelo gone. But these things happen.
So...it's tough to lay blame on any one side. It just didn't work out. It definitely sucks. This will be a worse team as it sits with Pietragnelo gone. But these things happen.
execwrite1
Registered User
- Mar 30, 2018
- 1,460
- 1,407
Blues fan first, then of individual players. Hope Petro does well but can't wait to eliminate his team from the playoffs.
To me a contract of $8 million x 8 years is too rich for any player. Vegas now has nearly 25% of their payroll tied up in two players - Petro and Stone - for the next five years.
How in the world is that going to work?
To me a contract of $8 million x 8 years is too rich for any player. Vegas now has nearly 25% of their payroll tied up in two players - Petro and Stone - for the next five years.
How in the world is that going to work?
Honestly, it is impossible to know. Your going to continue to hear noise from both sides but we will never know what exactly is true.
My own personal reading of the tea leaves is as follows. Apparently a big deal for the negotiation was the addition of NMC which Army has publicly stated he doesn't like giving and why he doesn't like giving them. Then he made exception for Petro because he is a special player. Next thing we heard about was signing bonuses which again Army is not a fan of but again seems like he was willing to make an exception for AP. It is believed that the Blues final offer before FA began was 8x8 with signing bonuses and a limited NMC in the contracts later years.
Now I turn to watch Pietrangelo got from Vegas. His contract was 7x8.8 which means through the life of his contract he will not make as much as he would have if he accepted the Blues 8 year offer. He did get his full NMC through the length of the contract with VGKs so that is a boon for them. However, according the capfriendly this contract did not include bonuses of any kind. So to summarize, got his full NMC, will not make as much money as he could have with the Blues and his contract with Vegas is all salary which is subject to escrow.
Maybe the full NMC was the lynch pin of the whole negotiation, maybe not. When I see all this though I see only one thing, the relationship got contentious in St. Louis. I think that Pietrangelo saw himself as the most valuable piece of this team and his original ask a year ago was representative of that. In AP's mind he should have been the #1 priority but instead he saw Schenn get signed first. Then he saw Faulk be brought in as insurance and suddenly he felt underappreciated and undervalued. Negotiations got put on hold during the season and I think those feelings began to fester so that when Covid happened and the salary cap freeze came. I think that Pietrangelo came into these final negotiations with a chip on his shoulder and if he didn't get everything he wanted he was going to leave. I think a lot of what we saw in the last couple of weeks was theatre with both sides seemingly trying to put blame on the other side because both knew there wasn't going to be a deal.
To me blame goes to both sides. Army should have made Pietrangelo a bigger priority and AP should not have let personal emotions cloud his judgement. I think if Pietrangelo wanted to be in St. Louis still he would be in St. Louis, the contract he got from Vegas was arguable worse than the 8 year one the Blues offered. I think a year of festering emotions and his souring relationship with Army was why he didn't re-sign with the Blues.
Edit: Right after I finished this Pierre Lebrun posted that Pietrangelo's VGK contract is actually very signing bonus heavy, so that does make the Knights offer a little more favorable over the Blues but still not significantly so IMO.
My own personal reading of the tea leaves is as follows. Apparently a big deal for the negotiation was the addition of NMC which Army has publicly stated he doesn't like giving and why he doesn't like giving them. Then he made exception for Petro because he is a special player. Next thing we heard about was signing bonuses which again Army is not a fan of but again seems like he was willing to make an exception for AP. It is believed that the Blues final offer before FA began was 8x8 with signing bonuses and a limited NMC in the contracts later years.
Now I turn to watch Pietrangelo got from Vegas. His contract was 7x8.8 which means through the life of his contract he will not make as much as he would have if he accepted the Blues 8 year offer. He did get his full NMC through the length of the contract with VGKs so that is a boon for them. However, according the capfriendly this contract did not include bonuses of any kind. So to summarize, got his full NMC, will not make as much money as he could have with the Blues and his contract with Vegas is all salary which is subject to escrow.
Maybe the full NMC was the lynch pin of the whole negotiation, maybe not. When I see all this though I see only one thing, the relationship got contentious in St. Louis. I think that Pietrangelo saw himself as the most valuable piece of this team and his original ask a year ago was representative of that. In AP's mind he should have been the #1 priority but instead he saw Schenn get signed first. Then he saw Faulk be brought in as insurance and suddenly he felt underappreciated and undervalued. Negotiations got put on hold during the season and I think those feelings began to fester so that when Covid happened and the salary cap freeze came. I think that Pietrangelo came into these final negotiations with a chip on his shoulder and if he didn't get everything he wanted he was going to leave. I think a lot of what we saw in the last couple of weeks was theatre with both sides seemingly trying to put blame on the other side because both knew there wasn't going to be a deal.
To me blame goes to both sides. Army should have made Pietrangelo a bigger priority and AP should not have let personal emotions cloud his judgement. I think if Pietrangelo wanted to be in St. Louis still he would be in St. Louis, the contract he got from Vegas was arguable worse than the 8 year one the Blues offered. I think a year of festering emotions and his souring relationship with Army was why he didn't re-sign with the Blues.
Edit: Right after I finished this Pierre Lebrun posted that Pietrangelo's VGK contract is actually very signing bonus heavy, so that does make the Knights offer a little more favorable over the Blues but still not significantly so IMO.
Last edited:
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,460
- 6,114
I don't think Armstrong ever intended to re-sign Alex Pietrangelo. The deal DA offered Alex was one he knew Alex would turn down. Everything Doug has said that runs contrary to that is PR damage control that he has to say to appease the sentimental masses.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,925
- 5,700
I would have preferred a better range of voting options. Why are the options two extremes?
As a result, I am abstaining from the vote.
As a result, I am abstaining from the vote.
I didn't vote because the options seemed leading and don't really encompass what happened. This is for the most part how I feel.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
LeBrun just tweeted out the structure few moments ago. Over half the contract is signing bonuses.
