Vote: How do you feel about how the Blues handled Petro?

[Stupendous Yappi]

Yeah I have absolutely nothing against Petro. It's Vegas with their extremely unfair expansion benefits and then subsequently being immune from Seattle expansion while other teams don't get that benefit. Screw that team, I hope they fail hard.

I see no problem with Vegas’ expansion ‘benefits’. Every single pundit claimed they’d be terrible, even after they saw the roster they’d assembled through the expansion draft process. But they did a hell of a job if assembling a team and getting the right coach for what that roster could do. They were more than the sum of their parts.

But I think they’ve made some roster mistakes now. They’re kind of going the opposite direction from the Blues’ philosophy. The Blues look to cultivate depth of good players. Vegas seems to be willing to sacrifice depth to acquire top talent (most recently with Pietro). They’re still in need of a move to open Cap just to get the salary under the limit EVEN IF they go with a smaller than full roster. It will be very interesting what that team actually looks like when they drop the puck.

I also have no problem with Vegas being exempt from the expansion draft by Seattle. Seattle paid $650 million. Vegas doesn’t get a share of that money. I think most teams would rather take the money and expose some players. Seems pretty fair to me.

I dislike Vegas because I don’t like the way their management treated Gallant. Or Fleury. And they bought our AHL franchise out from under us. And their fans haven’t really had to endure much disappointment yet. But I admire what they did with their own expansion draft.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

I don’t know how long it’s going to take for it to get through that Pietrangelo wanted to leave, but the sooner it does, the better.

Do you have insider info? Because Petro said in multiple interviews he wanted to stay in St. Louis but was getting f***ed around by Armstrong. Some of you are acting like Pietrangelo is injury prone and his play is just gonna drop off as soon as he turns 32. I see nothing to suggest Petro wouldn’t be worth 8.8 in 2025 or later when the cap will be ridiculous. Trading for Faulk and signing Krug forced Petro off the Blues and I think we screwed up. With Petro gone and Tarasenlo most likely out for the year, I’m having trouble seeing us make the playoffs this upcoming year.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I don’t know how to link these things on my phone, but uh, The Hockey News’ interview with Bill Foley was very interesting today.

Said they knew Petro was leaving St. Louis before the season ended.

 

[BlueKnight]

Do you have insider info? Because Petro said in multiple interviews he wanted to stay in St. Louis but was getting f***ed around by Armstrong. Some of you are acting like Pietrangelo is injury prone and his play is just gonna drop off as soon as he turns 32. I see nothing to suggest Petro wouldn’t be worth 8.8 in 2025 or later when the cap will be ridiculous. Trading for Faulk and signing Krug forced Petro off the Blues and I think we screwed up. With Petro gone and Tarasenlo most likely out for the year, I’m having trouble seeing us make the playoffs this upcoming year.

I agree. Petro did want to stay but got completely f***ed over by Army and the Faulk trade and signing last year and then the Krug signing basically closed the door on Petro.

I've moved on from Petro, what's done is done but just wanted to add and clarify a few things. All of the stuff I see here and on social media making Pietrangelo out to be a money chasing villain and yet completely ignore one of the biggest things he wanted. If he was just out chasing the money then why did he take less money? The bonus money he wanted is to cover himself and his family from the financial impact that may be felt years from now, from this pandemic which is completely resonable, He even said it himself in a recent interview that I listened to. And the NMC was so he could remain in St. Louis and and as he got older didn't get shipped to a rebuilding team or to the minors.

 

[FrontYardSpecial]

I don’t know how to link these things on my phone, but uh, The Hockey News’ interview with Bill Foley was very interesting today.

Said they knew Petro was leaving St. Louis before the season ended.

They begin discussing Petro around 3:38 for anyone curious.

https://www.si.com/hockey/video/gol...-pietrangelo-potential-nhl-divisional-changes

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don’t know how to link these things on my phone, but uh, The Hockey News’ interview with Bill Foley was very interesting today.

Said they knew Petro was leaving St. Louis before the season ended.

You aren’t quoting quite accurately. I watched the interview. ‘We knew they weren’t signing him.” It’s not clear if he’s saying they knew the Blues had decided the wouldn’t re-sign him, or they knew he had to been signed SO FAR and were monitoring. But he does mention they knew this AND THEN acted as soon as they were “authorized to do so” when free agency started.

But he said it twice, and sounds to me more likely that he meant that they got information that the Blues wouldn’t be signing Pietro. The only place he could learn that would be Pietro’s camp. Armstrong is well known for not leaking much at all, and certainly wouldn’t be leaking something like that to a competing bidder. The only other scenario I could see would maybe be owners talking to each other and Stillman maybe mentioning something.

Now that some dust has settled, I think both sides probably knew they weren’t going to get to a deal. Armstrong knew Pietro’s camp wouldn’t move off their demands, and they knew he wouldn’t offer the full bonus/NMC package.

I think with the various rumors, there is no question there was contact before free agency started. Was it tampering? Meh. If they were at an impasse, it doesn’t bother me if the agent informed potential bidders he was likely to enter the market. Armstrong moving quickly on Krug certainly looks like the Blues knew Pietro had a deal in principle elsewhere.

It’s a good interview. Thanks for posting about it.

 

[Spektre]

You aren’t quoting quite accurately. I watched the interview. ‘We knew they weren’t signing him.” It’s not clear if he’s saying they knew the Blues had decided the wouldn’t re-sign him, or they knew he had to been signed SO FAR and were monitoring. But he does mention they knew this AND THEN acted as soon as they were “authorized to do so” when free agency started.

But he said it twice, and sounds to me more likely that he meant that they got information that the Blues wouldn’t be signing Pietro. The only place he could learn that would be Pietro’s camp. Armstrong is well known for not leaking much at all, and certainly wouldn’t be leaking something like that to a competing bidder. The only other scenario I could see would maybe be owners talking to each other and Stillman maybe mentioning something.

Now that some dust has settled, I think both sides probably knew they weren’t going to get to a deal. Armstrong knew Pietro’s camp wouldn’t move off their demands, and they knew he wouldn’t offer the full bonus/NMC package.

I think with the various rumors, there is no question there was contact before free agency started. Was it tampering? Meh. If they were at an impasse, it doesn’t bother me if the agent informed potential bidders he was likely to enter the market. Armstrong moving quickly on Krug certainly looks like the Blues knew Pietro had a deal in principle elsewhere.

It’s a good interview. Thanks for posting about it.

He did say once free agency hit they knew he (Pietrangelo) wasn't going to sign with St. Louis (at the 4:50 mark).

There's nothing proving tampering with that statement but if he's accurate this entire charade by Pietrangelo about being shocked the Blues signed Krug, or whatever adjective he used, was probably for show. Annnnnd if true it lends more credence to the fact Army needed to sure up the D and wasn't waiting around on Pietrangelo.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

You aren’t quoting quite accurately. I watched the interview. ‘We knew they weren’t signing him.” It’s not clear if he’s saying they knew the Blues had decided the wouldn’t re-sign him, or they knew he had to been signed SO FAR and were monitoring. But he does mention they knew this AND THEN acted as soon as they were “authorized to do so” when free agency started.

But he said it twice, and sounds to me more likely that he meant that they got information that the Blues wouldn’t be signing Pietro. The only place he could learn that would be Pietro’s camp. Armstrong is well known for not leaking much at all, and certainly wouldn’t be leaking something like that to a competing bidder. The only other scenario I could see would maybe be owners talking to each other and Stillman maybe mentioning something.

Now that some dust has settled, I think both sides probably knew they weren’t going to get to a deal. Armstrong knew Pietro’s camp wouldn’t move off their demands, and they knew he wouldn’t offer the full bonus/NMC package.

I think with the various rumors, there is no question there was contact before free agency started. Was it tampering? Meh. If they were at an impasse, it doesn’t bother me if the agent informed potential bidders he was likely to enter the market. Armstrong moving quickly on Krug certainly looks like the Blues knew Pietro had a deal in principle elsewhere.

It’s a good interview. Thanks for posting about it.

That is totally true, I accidentally messed the wording up on that one.

I also lean towards the belief that it was Petro’s camp who would’ve leaked that pre-UFA.

I’m also starting to be more on the side of Petro was always going to test free agency. It’s in his agent’s DNA to get his players the best deal possible, and if that team doesn’t want to give it, someone else will.

 

[BlueKnight]

I don’t know how to link these things on my phone, but uh, The Hockey News’ interview with Bill Foley was very interesting today.

Said they knew Petro was leaving St. Louis before the season ended.

I listened to the interview it was interesting, And now I'm on the fence as who to believe, Honestly I don't care anymore. What's done is done.

 

[EastonBlues22]

He did say once free agency hit they knew he (Pietrangelo) wasn't going to sign with St. Louis (at the 4:50 mark).

There's nothing proving tampering with that statement but if he's accurate this entire charade by Pietrangelo about being shocked the Blues signed Krug, or whatever adjective he used, was probably for show. Annnnnd if true it lends more credence to the fact Army needed to sure up the D and wasn't waiting around on Pietrangelo.

There are people that are sure the world is flat. Just because someone is convinced something is true doesn't mean that it is.

The only person who would know for sure would be Pietrangelo...which, ironically, seems to be the one source whose version of events you seem less than inclined to take at face value.

 

[Reagans Blues]

Pietro isn't blameless but I don't see how anyone could be satisfied with how the situation was handled by the Blues.

 

[TruBlu]

I don't think the Blues "handled the situation badly." I think both sides had a line drawn in the sand and those lines didn't meet. Petro wanted a combination of cash/and a NMC for the entirety of his contract. DA, according to reports, offered close to the same field of contract that vegas offered. The sticking point for him was the NMC. I don't see this as a situation where anyone can be pointed at and it be said that they were just unreasonable. Petro did what he thought was best for him, DA did what he thought was best for the club. Time will tell who comes out the winner, but trying to make everything into a good guy/bad guy argument is a road to futility.

 

[joe galiba]

There are people that are sure the world is flat. Just because someone is convinced something is true doesn't mean that it is.

The only person who would know for sure would be Pietrangelo...which, ironically, seems to be the one source whose version of events you seem less than inclined to take at face value.

People say things all the time, and then their actions show something completely different
if Petro said he wanted to stay, but his actions show his full statement should have been - "I want to stay, but only if the Blues completely meet this set of demands"
so "I want to stay" is true, but only partly true
omission and commission
the bottom line is that if his full intention was to stay here, then that would have been followed by the action confirming that statement, which would have been signing a contract with the Blues

 

[Mike Liut]

You don’t need Petro to win a cup. Of the last 13 years, only one team with Petro on it won the cup

 

[EastonBlues22]

People say things all the time, and then their actions show something completely different
if Petro said he wanted to stay, but his actions show his full statement should have been - "I want to stay, but only if the Blues completely meet this set of demands"
so "I want to stay" is true, but only partly true
omission and commission
the bottom line is that if his full intention was to stay here, then that would have been followed by the action confirming that statement, which would have been signing a contract with the Blues

I think most mature people understand that you can want multiple things at once, and that you can desire for something to happen and then still ultimately not have that thing materialize.

Are we bagging on Armstrong for not publicly saying "We want Pietrangelo back, but only if he'll agree to these conditions which we know are significantly less than what he's likely receive on the open market?" I mean, if wanting Pietrangelo back was his full intention, then it would have been followed by action confirming that statement (meeting Pietrangelo's contract demands and ultimately signing him), right?

No, of course not, because everyone understands that when he says he "wants Pietrangelo back," what he means is that he wants him back on terms that ultimately work for him and the team, not that "we want Pietrangelo back no matter what the cost might be." We don't need that obvious implication spelled out explicitly to understand what he means...nor do we really want to hear it. People just don't talk like that, and it's going to leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths if he (or Pietrangelo, for that matter) says it.

Pietrangelo didn't misrepresent himself or his intentions anymore than Armstrong did, and I'm not sure why the double standard for their behavior is being applied here, other than perhaps because ownership is always assumed to be running a business by fans, and players are often glorified to prioritize pretty much everything but the business side of things (loving the game, only caring about winning, loyalty to the team, etc.). Then when it turns out that players care about the business side of things, too, it always seems to be taken as this huge betrayal.

I also don't understand why we need to paint one side or another as a liar or villain who never had any intention of trying to make things work. I genuinely believe that both parties meant what they said, and if they had more common ground, that Pietrangelo would be here. I think the Blues should have made those concessions that they ultimately didn't, but that doesn't mean I think Armstrong was lying about wanting Pietrangelo back. Nor do I think Pietrangelo was lying about wanting to be back just because he didn't take an offer that didn't meet a number of his asks (that were ultimately met by another party) to make it happen. One thing doesn't dictate the other.

 

[joe galiba]

I think most mature people understand that you can want multiple things at once, and that you can desire for something to happen and then still ultimately not have that thing materialize.

Are we bagging on Armstrong for not publicly saying "We want Pietrangelo back, but only if he'll agree to these conditions which we know are significantly less than what he's likely receive on the open market?" I mean, if wanting Pietrangelo back was his full intention, then it would have been followed by action confirming that statement (meeting Pietrangelo's contract demands and ultimately signing him), right?

No, of course not, because everyone understands that when he says he "wants Pietrangelo back," what he means is that he wants him back on terms that ultimately work for him and the team, not that "we want Pietrangelo back no matter what the cost might be." We don't need that obvious implication spelled out explicitly to understand what he means...nor do we really want to hear it. People just don't talk like that, and it's going to leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths if he (or Pietrangelo, for that matter) says it.

Pietrangelo didn't misrepresent himself or his intentions anymore than Armstrong did, and I'm not sure why the double standard for their behavior is being applied here, other than perhaps because ownership is always assumed to be running a business by fans, and players are often glorified to prioritize pretty much everything but the business side of things (loving the game, only caring about winning, loyalty to the team, etc.). Then when it turns out that players care about the business side of things, too, it always seems to be taken as this huge betrayal.

I also don't understand why we need to paint one side or another as a liar or villain who never had any intention of trying to make things work. I genuinely believe that both parties meant what they said, and if they had more common ground, that Pietrangelo would be here. I think the Blues should have made those concessions that they ultimately didn't, but that doesn't mean I think Armstrong was lying about wanting Pietrangelo back. Nor do I think Pietrangelo was lying about wanting to be back just because he didn't take an offer that didn't meet a number of his asks (that were ultimately met by another party) to make it happen. One thing doesn't dictate the other.

i have zero problem with Petro’s decision and wish him and his family nothing but the best except when he plays the Blues and I also understand where Army was coming from with his offer

my job involves buying from manufacturers and their reps
I get fed BS constantly, whether it is prices, delivery, quality,...
and I ultimately make my judgements moving forward as partners with our suppliers based on whether their actions match their words
my point was that Petro saying he wants to stay isn’t any sort of absolute and shouldn’t be viewed as such
and ultimately he decided that what he wanted in a contract was more important then staying
and you are correct in that the same applies to the Blues, their actions, to me, tell me more than anything they may have said

 

[Mike Liut]

I have zero attachment to a player when he leaves...zero.

 

[Spektre]

There are people that are sure the world is flat. Just because someone is convinced something is true doesn't mean that it is.

The only person who would know for sure would be Pietrangelo...which, ironically, seems to be the one source whose version of events you seem less than inclined to take at face value.

I will agree to your point about being convinced of something doesn’t make it a fact. In this situation we don’t know the information the Vegas owner was privy to so we can’t say he’s incorrect.

I don’t have a crystal ball and I have zero inside information. I have to look at the facts and then sprinkle in the other variables such as what each party said including Vegas.

Can we agree that Pietrangelo’s camp leaked information saying Pietrangelo was offered a contract but it didn’t include the details? The media ran with it and it certainly didn’t come from Army as he stands to gain nothing from it. Army also went out of his way during his interview to bring this exact leak up and denied it ever happened. To date nobody has refuted what Army has said.

I doubt the media came up with this story all by themselves. I can’t prove it but that’s what makes the most sense. If you agree with me on this one aspect then it puts the Pietrangelo camp in a disingenuous position.

I have spelled out other variables like no high profile player goes to free agency and then signs with their current team. Also, Pietrangelo and Army both said a meeting happened between themselves and Stillman the weekend prior to free agency in which all parties said it didn’t go well.

So, when I look at the totality of known variables I don’t believe Pietrangelo was being 100% truthful when he replied he was shocked or whatever at the news of Krug signing. Maybe he was a little surprised the Blues were able to sign Krug but I don’t believe he was still believing that the Blues and himself were going to reach a deal.

Again, it’s something politically correct to say but when (in my opinion) your side has already shown to be disingenuous then why would I not view statements like this with a grain of salt??

Honestly, I have no stake in the outcome either way and it’s been a dead horse for a while. Pietrangelo going to Vegas doesn’t diminish the success he had here to me. But, he’s no longer a Blue. I just want the page turned

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Pietro’s text message to JR was that he was “caught off guard” by the Krug signing. He commented on it later to explain he meant he hadn’t been following developments and as simply surprised when JR asked him about it. I think too much has been made of dissecting a one-line text that probably didn’t involve a lot of thought.

I DONT think Pietro was saying, “I thought I was going to sign with St Louis still and was shocked they signed Krug before circling back to me.” But plenty of fans/critics have wanted to interpret it that way. I think when he rejected the 8 year deal, both sides realized he wasn’t signing in St Louis. That was Pietro crossing the Rubicon. The reality of it probably hit then.

 

[simon IC]

I wish Pietrangelo and his family well, and I harbour no ill feelings towards him. Professionally, he no longer matters to me because he is no longer a St. Louis Blue, so in that respect, I have moved on. What is still relevant to me is Doug Armstrong's performance as GM of the Blues during the negotiation. Like Easton, I believe that Armstrong should have made the concessions to Pietrangelo that eventually he did not. I firmly believe that if we gave Pietrangelo the same contract that Vegas did, it would not have hurt the team. I will expand on that by stating that the immediate benefits of having Alex on the team for the next few years would have far outweighed the disadvantage of having an unmovable contract in the final years. You make exceptions for exceptional players. I honestly think Doug Armstrong may have effectively closed our cup window. If we had matched Vegas' offer, and then Pietrangelo still signed with them, then we would have known Alex's intentions, and Armstrong would be off the hook. As it is, I still hold Doug Armstrong accountable.

 

[BlueKnight]

I wish Pietrangelo and his family well, and I harbour no ill feelings towards him. Professionally, he no longer matters to me because he is no longer a St. Louis Blue, so in that respect, I have moved on. What is still relevant to me is Doug Armstrong's performance as GM of the Blues during the negotiation. Like Easton, I believe that Armstrong should have made the concessions to Pietrangelo that eventually he did not. I firmly believe that if we gave Pietrangelo the same contract that Vegas did, it would not have hurt the team. I will expand on that by stating that the immediate benefits of having Alex on the team for the next few years would have far outweighed the disadvantage of having an unmovable contract in the final years. You make exceptions for exceptional players. I honestly think Doug Armstrong may have effectively closed our cup window. If we had matched Vegas' offer, and then Pietrangelo still signed with them, then we would have known Alex's intentions, and Armstrong would be off the hook. As it is, I still hold Doug Armstrong accountable.

Well said Simon.

 

[joe galiba]

Pietro’s text message to JR was that he was “caught off guard” by the Krug signing. He commented on it later to explain he meant he hadn’t been following developments and as simply surprised when JR asked him about it. I think too much has been made of dissecting a one-line text that probably didn’t involve a lot of thought.

I DONT think Pietro was saying, “I thought I was going to sign with St Louis still and was shocked they signed Krug before circling back to me.” But plenty of fans/critics have wanted to interpret it that way. I think when he rejected the 8 year deal, both sides realized he wasn’t signing in St Louis. That was Pietro crossing the Rubicon. The reality of it probably hit then.

I am currently watching "The Rise of Rome" on Prime Video from The Great Courses and I stopped last night just before Julius Caesar was going to cross the Rubicon

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think most mature people understand that you can want multiple things at once, and that you can desire for something to happen and then still ultimately not have that thing materialize.

Are we bagging on Armstrong for not publicly saying "We want Pietrangelo back, but only if he'll agree to these conditions which we know are significantly less than what he's likely receive on the open market?" I mean, if wanting Pietrangelo back was his full intention, then it would have been followed by action confirming that statement (meeting Pietrangelo's contract demands and ultimately signing him), right?

No, of course not, because everyone understands that when he says he "wants Pietrangelo back," what he means is that he wants him back on terms that ultimately work for him and the team, not that "we want Pietrangelo back no matter what the cost might be." We don't need that obvious implication spelled out explicitly to understand what he means...nor do we really want to hear it. People just don't talk like that, and it's going to leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths if he (or Pietrangelo, for that matter) says it.

Pietrangelo didn't misrepresent himself or his intentions anymore than Armstrong did, and I'm not sure why the double standard for their behavior is being applied here, other than perhaps because ownership is always assumed to be running a business by fans, and players are often glorified to prioritize pretty much everything but the business side of things (loving the game, only caring about winning, loyalty to the team, etc.). Then when it turns out that players care about the business side of things, too, it always seems to be taken as this huge betrayal.

I also don't understand why we need to paint one side or another as a liar or villain who never had any intention of trying to make things work. I genuinely believe that both parties meant what they said, and if they had more common ground, that Pietrangelo would be here. I think the Blues should have made those concessions that they ultimately didn't, but that doesn't mean I think Armstrong was lying about wanting Pietrangelo back. Nor do I think Pietrangelo was lying about wanting to be back just because he didn't take an offer that didn't meet a number of his asks (that were ultimately met by another party) to make it happen. One thing doesn't dictate the other.

I'm going to expand on a couple points here:

1. As I have mentioned in other posts, context to a statement is critical. Pietrangelo has said "I wanted to be back" and people are reading into that things that are unsaid, creating a context that fits the narrative they want to believe. And, at the same time, Armstrong saying "we offered some signing bonus money and a partial no-move" is being read with a context that fits that same narrative despite also having a number of things unsaid. Words without context are left open to interpretation, often intentionally. If one is going to do this, at least be consistent in how you're doing that - otherwise, acknowledge that the statement lacks the necessary context and more information is needed to properly frame it.

2. I also don't think Armstrong was lying about wanting Pietrangelo back, nor do I think Pietrangelo was lying about wanting to stay. How much each side wanted that, ... well, that's what we're trying to really figure out, and no one has a firm handle on yet. On a 0-100 scale, 100 = completely interested and 0 = completely uninterested, was Armstrong's interest a 97 or a 3? Was Pietrangelo a 12, a 53 or a 95? Because any value other than 0 means he would have been interested - but values on opposite ends of that spectrum connote vastly different levels of interest and have a significant impact on impressions about each side's approach. Until we get a grasp on where on that scale each side really was, anyone claiming to know in some way is guessing blindly.

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

Hated it. Hated the whole situation. We could have, and should have, paid that. We also never should have re-signed Faulk (don't mind the trade). Or we should have traded for him, watched him this year, and signed him to a much friendlier deal.

That said, I've always been really high on Krug and love that there was a plan B. I figured we'd lose 27 and just go "Oh well", and I would have been absolutely furious.

So I give a "C" to the whole thing.

 

[Ranksu]

There are people that are sure the world is flat.

World is flat.