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

[Celtic Note]

Additional options added, per feedback.

Much appreciated!

 

[Stealth JD]

It is a complete and total failure.

Petro is a Cup winner, an Olympic gold medalist, a 3 time end-of-season all star, and a consensus top 10 D man in the NHL. He finished 4th in Norris voting this season, has three total top 5 Norris voting finishes, has played the 6th most minutes of all NHL D men in the last 5 years, was 6th in points among D men this year and was 3rd in goals. He is 30 and every model/comparable player history suggests that he will be elite for 3ish years, a top pairing guy for 2ish years and then regress somewhere between top 4 and "serviceable" for the remainder. His Vegas contract is the 13th highest value contract among active NHL D men. 9 D men who signed deals under the current CBA will make more total dollars than Petro will on this deal.

Failing to find common ground on an offer that beats what Vegas ultimately landed him for is a massive loss for the organization. We had 15+ months to negotiate a new deal, held the advantage of being the only team who could offer an 8th year and the advantage of being the only city he has lived in as an adult. We also had 4 days after he hit UFA to stay in touch and work on a contract that he would prefer to Vegas' offer. Despite all those advantages, we failed to retain a top 10 NHL D man who ultimately accepted a non-top-10 NHL D man contract. That is a complete and total failure.

The fact that Elliotte Friedman believes that negotiations got personal is extremely troubling. The fact that we are organizationally unwilling to offer a full NMC to anyone is extremely troubling for upcoming Parayko negotiations and the eventual ROR negotiation. The fact that we prioritized acquiring and extending Faulk more highly than Petro is somewhat troubling (the unexpected flat cap greatly magnified the consequences of this decision, which was defensible at the time).

The roster is worse today than it has been at any point over the last 2 seasons. We had 3 D men who played more than 17 minutes a night on our Cup run. Two of them are gone. Eddy was our 4th most used D man on the Cup run. He is gone. Those 3 players were replaced with Faulk, Krug and Scandella for a combined $16.25M against the cap. We haven't upgraded any of the bottom 5-7 D. The D has gotten noticeably worse, smaller, cost assets to acquire and isn't any cheaper than it would have been if we had simply paid our players market value.

We have made our team worse because we weren't willing to match or beat an offer that is noticeably less than what consensus top 10 NHL D men are worth. Our issue is reportedly an unwillingness to give up roster flexibility 5+ years down the road, yet in the last year we have given out an 8 year deal to a 29 year old, a 7 year deal to a 29 year old and a 7 year deal to a 28 year old. All of those contracts have full NTCs for the first 5 years and a 15 team no trade list for the remaining years. While each individual contract has more flexibility than a single contract with a NMC, there is objectively less flexibility in having 2 or 3 of those deals than there is a single player with a NMC.

The totality of Army's blue line construction leaves the group worse than it was last June. The totality of Army's roster construction is spending more money on that blue line right now than it could/would have been by simply leaving it intact last summer and giving guys market value (including Petro at $9M AAV). The totality of Army's roster construction sees two difficult-to-impossible to move contracts instead of simply giving one near-impossible to move contract to Petro. The totality of Army's roster construction has reduced the roster flexibility over the next 4 years by locking in two 7 year contracts and one 4 year contract. All of this has been done in the name of increasing roster flexibility 5+ years down the line, yet we have $13M locked into the blue line with 15 team no-trade clauses in years 5-7. So at best your flexibility compared to just having one NMC in years 5-8 is a wash.

The blueline got worse and we have no greater overall roster flexibility than we would have if we had given Petro a contract that beats the offer he got from Vegas. We had 15+ months to reach such an agreement with him and failed to do so. The Petro negotiation and the surrounding/resulting roster decisions was a complete and total failure.

I cannot like this post enough. The magnitude of failure on the part of the Blues leadership cannot be over-stated. What was the point of locking up Schenn & Faulk for the remainder of their careers if you're going to balk at your best defenders very reasonable contract demands? Army has cut off his nose to spite his face. And barring a regime-change in the front-office, the chances of the Blues ever convincing a top-5 talent at his position to stay with the club beyond his team-controlled years is very, very slim. They may have well just come out and said "we're too cheap to pay for top talent". If I'm ROR or Parayko, I was just told my next payday isn't coming from the Blues, unless I'm willing to fall in-line and accept 2nd-line terms and dollars.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

And it was only after O’Reilly got here that we saw results. Weird.

Weird, because even after O'Reilly got here this team was shit for about the first 3 months of the season. I seem to recall we needed a couple changes in a couple other places before we got results.

I can't remember what those were, though. Probably not real significant. I'm sure we'd have had the same 2019 Cup run and all the resulting jubilation if we just stuck with what we had at about 9:00pm on November 18, 2019 and ridden that the rest of the way. Probably would have had as much if not more success this season, too.

 

[Celtic Note]

It is a complete and total failure.

Petro is a Cup winner, an Olympic gold medalist, a 3 time end-of-season all star, and a consensus top 10 D man in the NHL. He finished 4th in Norris voting this season, has three total top 5 Norris voting finishes, has played the 6th most minutes of all NHL D men in the last 5 years, was 6th in points among D men this year and was 3rd in goals. He is 30 and every model/comparable player history suggests that he will be elite for 3ish years, a top pairing guy for 2ish years and then regress somewhere between top 4 and "serviceable" for the remainder. His Vegas contract is the 13th highest value contract among active NHL D men. 9 D men who signed deals under the current CBA will make more total dollars than Petro will on this deal.

Failing to find common ground on an offer that beats what Vegas ultimately landed him for is a massive loss for the organization. We had 15+ months to negotiate a new deal, held the advantage of being the only team who could offer an 8th year and the advantage of being the only city he has lived in as an adult. We also had 4 days after he hit UFA to stay in touch and work on a contract that he would prefer to Vegas' offer. Despite all those advantages, we failed to retain a top 10 NHL D man who ultimately accepted a non-top-10 NHL D man contract. That is a complete and total failure.

The fact that Elliotte Friedman believes that negotiations got personal is extremely troubling. The fact that we are organizationally unwilling to offer a full NMC to anyone is extremely troubling for upcoming Parayko negotiations and the eventual ROR negotiation. The fact that we prioritized acquiring and extending Faulk more highly than Petro is somewhat troubling (the unexpected flat cap greatly magnified the consequences of this decision, which was defensible at the time).

The roster is worse today than it has been at any point over the last 2 seasons. We had 3 D men who played more than 17 minutes a night on our Cup run. Two of them are gone. Eddy was our 4th most used D man on the Cup run. He is gone. Those 3 players were replaced with Faulk, Krug and Scandella for a combined $16.25M against the cap. We haven't upgraded any of the bottom 5-7 D. The D has gotten noticeably worse, smaller, cost assets to acquire and isn't any cheaper than it would have been if we had simply paid our players market value.

We have made our team worse because we weren't willing to match or beat an offer that is noticeably less than what consensus top 10 NHL D men are worth. Our issue is reportedly an unwillingness to give up roster flexibility 5+ years down the road, yet in the last year we have given out an 8 year deal to a 29 year old, a 7 year deal to a 29 year old and a 7 year deal to a 28 year old. All of those contracts have full NTCs for the first 5 years and a 15 team no trade list for the remaining years. While each individual contract has more flexibility than a single contract with a NMC, there is objectively less flexibility in having 2 or 3 of those deals than there is a single player with a NMC.

The totality of Army's blue line construction leaves the group worse than it was last June. The totality of Army's roster construction is spending more money on that blue line right now than it could/would have been by simply leaving it intact last summer and giving guys market value (including Petro at $9M AAV). The totality of Army's roster construction sees two difficult-to-impossible to move contracts instead of simply giving one near-impossible to move contract to Petro. The totality of Army's roster construction has reduced the roster flexibility over the next 4 years by locking in two 7 year contracts and one 4 year contract. All of this has been done in the name of increasing roster flexibility 5+ years down the line, yet we have $13M locked into the blue line with 15 team no-trade clauses in years 5-7. So at best your flexibility compared to just having one NMC in years 5-8 is a wash.

The blueline got worse and we have no greater overall roster flexibility than we would have if we had given Petro a contract that beats the offer he got from Vegas. We had 15+ months to reach such an agreement with him and failed to do so. The Petro negotiation and the surrounding/resulting roster decisions was a complete and total failure.

We are spending $21.775 on a top 4 of:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk

This top 4 group costs $770k less:

Eddy-Petro
Scandella-Parayko

We gave up a former 1st round pick 1 year removed from the draft in order to build that first group. Additionally, that first group blocks Dunn from reaching his ceiling while the bottom group would have given him opportunities to be utilized to his strengths. The top group has two 7 year contracts with full NTCs in the first 5 years and 15 team no trade lists for years 6-7. The bottom group has one guy with a full NMC and one guy with a 4 year 10 team no trade list. Fun fact, last year Eddy finished the year just 1 even strength point behind Krug. They tied in even strength goals.

The moves Army has made since we won the Cup are similar to the moves that made me question what the hell he was doing throughout his time here before the Schenn trade and also back in Dallas. We are incredibly lucky that something clicked when he went out and traded Schenn, signed Bozak and Traded for ROR, all in a relatively short timeframe. It was the first time he adequately addressed our long term center deficiencies during his entire time with the Blues. I fear we are now going to be in a position where we will go through the same gymnastics working on fixing our D.

I would also like to take a minute to point out that the Blues needed to find a Petro replacement years ago in the form of a prospect they could draft and develop. That was my position back then and there was a decent contingent saying no, we don’t need that because we have Petro and Parayko. This situation is a case in point that you cannot bank on what you have now as being what you will have in the future, especially with Army at the helm. I could go into more detail here about why it was needed back then, but it is all well documented in some long past posts.

If we look at goaltending we essentially lucked into the position where Binnington became our starter and that has long since been a position where he was not able to find an adequate compliment. The fumbling there was just as bad, if not worse than the center debacle.

Now we are returning to a point where it is unclear what he is trying to build.

 

[Brian39]

The moves Army has made since we won the Cup are similar to the moves that made me question what the hell he was doing throughout his time here before the Schenn trade and also back in Dallas. We are incredibly luck that something clicked when he went out and traded Schenn, signed Bozak and Traded for ROR. It was the first time he adequately addressed our long terms center deficiencies. I fear we are now going to be in a position where we will go through the same gymnastics working on fixing our D.

I would also like to take a minute to point out that the Blues needed to find a Petro replacement years ago in the form of a prospect they could draft and develop. That was my position back then and there was a decent contingent saying no, we don’t need that because we have Petro and Parayko. This situation is a case in point that you cannot bank on what you have now as being what you will have in the future, especially with Army at the helm.

I'll be the first to admit that I was on the "we don't need to focus on RHD drafting/development because we should be organizationally sound there for the next 7+ years." I would also note that I have been loudly part of the "do what it takes to retain Petro" crowd.

With all of that said, Perunovich played on the right side in college, so you can argue that we have some prospect talent on the right side. Not really sure how we can afford to give another small, defensive liability NHL minutes given the construction of our blue line, but he was probably a year away anyway. Dunn is almost certainly gone by the time Perunovich breaks into the league.

 

[BlueKnight]

How was it a lie?

He's not going to sign with another team, which was well within his right, and then talk about how he never wanted to sign there.

It's entirely true that he wanted to stay in STL, but also desired a specific contract structure, including a full NMC along with a decent portion of the contract in signing bonuses.

The Blues final offer had a partial NMC at some point in the later years, as well as a limited number of years including signing bonuses.

Vegas offered a full NMC throughout the contract's term and $35M worth of signing bonuses throughout the deal. Which is what he wanted from the start.

He never led anyone on. He was more than open to staying. Armstrong decided to go another direction. Me, and a few others believe that was the wrong direction for a multitude of reasons. Whether you agree or not, is up to you.

If Army truly does have an issue with Newport, and is adamantly against giving out NMC's and signing bonuses, then the Blues will have a lot of trouble acquiring and retaining high-end talent. Because, as seen with Petro, if we don't offer it, someone will. So I sincerely hope this philosophy changes because like Bergeron, I firmly believe O'Rielly is gonna be one hell of a player into his mid-to-late 30's and his past negotiations certainly weren't the prettiest. He's also a Newport client.

I've been going back and forth on this and I've been reading too much into the stuff that's out there. I shouldn't say he was lying, I know he wanted to stay and wanted the structure that he rightfully deserves. I agree what Army did was the wrong direction. I do believe Armstrong does have a problem with Newport Schenn leaves them and he gets immediately gets rewarded. Schwartz recently left Newport. And after what was seen with Pietrangelo premium high end free agents will skip by the Blues. And on another note it should be interesting what happens to O'Rielly as he is a Newport client, If he becomes captain and wins a cup I guarantee, We'll see the same with O'Rielly as we saw with Pietrangelo.

 

[Celtic Note]

I'll be the first to admit that I was on the "we don't need to focus on RHD drafting/development because we should be organizationally sound there for the next 7+ years. I would also note that I have been loudly part of the "do what it takes to retain Petro" crowd.

With all of that said, Perunovich played on the right side in college, so you can argue that we have some prospect talent on the right side. Not really sure how we can afford to give another small, defensive liability NHL minutes given the construction of our blue line, but he was probably a year away anyway. Dunn is almost certainly gone by the time Perunovich breaks into the league.

I would argue that we could have been developing a Petro replacement that could cover the left side and under the circumstances that Petro stayed, our overall team core could have been better and cheaper today. It also could have given us the flexibility to decide if keeping Petro was in our long term best interest, as we would have been in a better position in the short and long term and not had to sacrifice competing versus our future.

 

[execwrite1]

It is a complete and total failure.

Petro is a Cup winner, an Olympic gold medalist, a 3 time end-of-season all star, and a consensus top 10 D man in the NHL. He finished 4th in Norris voting this season, has three total top 5 Norris voting finishes, has played the 6th most minutes of all NHL D men in the last 5 years, was 6th in points among D men this year and was 3rd in goals. He is 30 and every model/comparable player history suggests that he will be elite for 3ish years, a top pairing guy for 2ish years and then regress somewhere between top 4 and "serviceable" for the remainder. His Vegas contract is the 13th highest value contract among active NHL D men. 9 D men who signed deals under the current CBA will make more total dollars than Petro will on this deal.

Failing to find common ground on an offer that beats what Vegas ultimately landed him for is a massive loss for the organization. We had 15+ months to negotiate a new deal, held the advantage of being the only team who could offer an 8th year and the advantage of being the only city he has lived in as an adult. We also had 4 days after he hit UFA to stay in touch and work on a contract that he would prefer to Vegas' offer. Despite all those advantages, we failed to retain a top 10 NHL D man who ultimately accepted a non-top-10 NHL D man contract. That is a complete and total failure.

The fact that Elliotte Friedman believes that negotiations got personal is extremely troubling. The fact that we are organizationally unwilling to offer a full NMC to anyone is extremely troubling for upcoming Parayko negotiations and the eventual ROR negotiation. The fact that we prioritized acquiring and extending Faulk more highly than Petro is somewhat troubling (the unexpected flat cap greatly magnified the consequences of this decision, which was defensible at the time).

The roster is worse today than it has been at any point over the last 2 seasons. We had 3 D men who played more than 17 minutes a night on our Cup run. Two of them are gone. Eddy was our 4th most used D man on the Cup run. He is gone. Those 3 players were replaced with Faulk, Krug and Scandella for a combined $16.25M against the cap. We haven't upgraded any of the bottom 5-7 D. The D has gotten noticeably worse, smaller, cost assets to acquire and isn't any cheaper than it would have been if we had simply paid our players market value.

We have made our team worse because we weren't willing to match or beat an offer that is noticeably less than what consensus top 10 NHL D men are worth. Our issue is reportedly an unwillingness to give up roster flexibility 5+ years down the road, yet in the last year we have given out an 8 year deal to a 29 year old, a 7 year deal to a 29 year old and a 7 year deal to a 28 year old. All of those contracts have full NTCs for the first 5 years and a 15 team no trade list for the remaining years. While each individual contract has more flexibility than a single contract with a NMC, there is objectively less flexibility in having 2 or 3 of those deals than there is a single player with a NMC.

The totality of Army's blue line construction leaves the group worse than it was last June. The totality of Army's roster construction is spending more money on that blue line right now than it could/would have been by simply leaving it intact last summer and giving guys market value (including Petro at $9M AAV). The totality of Army's roster construction sees two difficult-to-impossible to move contracts instead of simply giving one near-impossible to move contract to Petro. The totality of Army's roster construction has reduced the roster flexibility over the next 4 years by locking in two 7 year contracts and one 4 year contract. All of this has been done in the name of increasing roster flexibility 5+ years down the line, yet we have $13M locked into the blue line with 15 team no-trade clauses in years 5-7. So at best your flexibility compared to just having one NMC in years 5-8 is a wash.

The blueline got worse and we have no greater overall roster flexibility than we would have if we had given Petro a contract that beats the offer he got from Vegas. We had 15+ months to reach such an agreement with him and failed to do so. The Petro negotiation and the surrounding/resulting roster decisions was a complete and total failure.

We are spending $21.775 on a top 4 of:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk

This top 4 group costs $770k less:

Eddy-Petro
Scandella-Parayko

We gave up a former 1st round pick 1 year removed from the draft in order to build that first group. Additionally, that first group blocks Dunn from reaching his ceiling while the bottom group would have given him opportunities to be utilized to his strengths. The top group has two 7 year contracts with full NTCs in the first 5 years and 15 team no trade lists for years 6-7. The bottom group has one guy with a full NMC and one guy with a 4 year 10 team no trade list. Fun fact, last year Eddy finished the year just 1 even strength point behind Krug. They tied in even strength goals.

You make a very strong case. Faulk and Krug somehow have to bring more value than Petro to make Armstrong the winner.

Hard to see happening but we'll have to let it play out this season.

 

[rumrokh]

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.

Same. I'm between bad and good. It's complicated and I can see obvious benefits to both sides (as well as other moves that could have been made along the way), but it's not clear right now what the best course of action was. Hell, we might never know. I don't understand people who are absolutely convinced one way or the other.

 

[shpongle falls]

I think what it boils down to is Petro didn’t really want to stay here for the remainder of his career, simple as that. He’s earned that right but its sad to see him go.

In going to wait and see what Berube/Van Ryn can do with this group of defenseman and see what they do during the season before getting too critical.

 

[BlueKnight]

It is a complete and total failure.

Petro is a Cup winner, an Olympic gold medalist, a 3 time end-of-season all star, and a consensus top 10 D man in the NHL. He finished 4th in Norris voting this season, has three total top 5 Norris voting finishes, has played the 6th most minutes of all NHL D men in the last 5 years, was 6th in points among D men this year and was 3rd in goals. He is 30 and every model/comparable player history suggests that he will be elite for 3ish years, a top pairing guy for 2ish years and then regress somewhere between top 4 and "serviceable" for the remainder. His Vegas contract is the 13th highest value contract among active NHL D men. 9 D men who signed deals under the current CBA will make more total dollars than Petro will on this deal.

Failing to find common ground on an offer that beats what Vegas ultimately landed him for is a massive loss for the organization. We had 15+ months to negotiate a new deal, held the advantage of being the only team who could offer an 8th year and the advantage of being the only city he has lived in as an adult. We also had 4 days after he hit UFA to stay in touch and work on a contract that he would prefer to Vegas' offer. Despite all those advantages, we failed to retain a top 10 NHL D man who ultimately accepted a non-top-10 NHL D man contract. That is a complete and total failure.

The fact that Elliotte Friedman believes that negotiations got personal is extremely troubling. The fact that we are organizationally unwilling to offer a full NMC to anyone is extremely troubling for upcoming Parayko negotiations and the eventual ROR negotiation. The fact that we prioritized acquiring and extending Faulk more highly than Petro is somewhat troubling (the unexpected flat cap greatly magnified the consequences of this decision, which was defensible at the time).

The roster is worse today than it has been at any point over the last 2 seasons. We had 3 D men who played more than 17 minutes a night on our Cup run. Two of them are gone. Eddy was our 4th most used D man on the Cup run. He is gone. Those 3 players were replaced with Faulk, Krug and Scandella for a combined $16.25M against the cap. We haven't upgraded any of the bottom 5-7 D. The D has gotten noticeably worse, smaller, cost assets to acquire and isn't any cheaper than it would have been if we had simply paid our players market value.

We have made our team worse because we weren't willing to match or beat an offer that is noticeably less than what consensus top 10 NHL D men are worth. Our issue is reportedly an unwillingness to give up roster flexibility 5+ years down the road, yet in the last year we have given out an 8 year deal to a 29 year old, a 7 year deal to a 29 year old and a 7 year deal to a 28 year old. All of those contracts have full NTCs for the first 5 years and a 15 team no trade list for the remaining years. While each individual contract has more flexibility than a single contract with a NMC, there is objectively less flexibility in having 2 or 3 of those deals than there is a single player with a NMC.

The totality of Army's blue line construction leaves the group worse than it was last June. The totality of Army's roster construction is spending more money on that blue line right now than it could/would have been by simply leaving it intact last summer and giving guys market value (including Petro at $9M AAV). The totality of Army's roster construction sees two difficult-to-impossible to move contracts instead of simply giving one near-impossible to move contract to Petro. The totality of Army's roster construction has reduced the roster flexibility over the next 4 years by locking in two 7 year contracts and one 4 year contract. All of this has been done in the name of increasing roster flexibility 5+ years down the line, yet we have $13M locked into the blue line with 15 team no-trade clauses in years 5-7. So at best your flexibility compared to just having one NMC in years 5-8 is a wash.

The blueline got worse and we have no greater overall roster flexibility than we would have if we had given Petro a contract that beats the offer he got from Vegas. We had 15+ months to reach such an agreement with him and failed to do so. The Petro negotiation and the surrounding/resulting roster decisions was a complete and total failure.

We are spending $21.775 on a top 4 of:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk

This top 4 group costs $770k less:

Eddy-Petro
Scandella-Parayko

We gave up a former 1st round pick 1 year removed from the draft in order to build that first group. Additionally, that first group blocks Dunn from reaching his ceiling while the bottom group would have given him opportunities to be utilized to his strengths. The top group has two 7 year contracts with full NTCs in the first 5 years and 15 team no trade lists for years 6-7. The bottom group has one guy with a full NMC and one guy with a 4 year 10 team no trade list. Fun fact, last year Eddy finished the year just 1 even strength point behind Krug. They tied in even strength goals.

I can't like this post enough. Army completely bungled the Pietrangelo negotiations. Unless Army knew something before that's why he traded for and signed Faulk as insurance. With that he screwed that up and took out the wrong policy. And I truly do believe that the negotiations did get personal and do believe there's also bad blood between Petro and Army.

Army totally imploded this great and historic cup winning team, We'll be lucky if we even make the playoffs.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

It is a complete and total failure.

Petro is a Cup winner, an Olympic gold medalist, a 3 time end-of-season all star, and a consensus top 10 D man in the NHL. He finished 4th in Norris voting this season, has three total top 5 Norris voting finishes, has played the 6th most minutes of all NHL D men in the last 5 years, was 6th in points among D men this year and was 3rd in goals. He is 30 and every model/comparable player history suggests that he will be elite for 3ish years, a top pairing guy for 2ish years and then regress somewhere between top 4 and "serviceable" for the remainder. His Vegas contract is the 13th highest value contract among active NHL D men. 9 D men who signed deals under the current CBA will make more total dollars than Petro will on this deal.

Failing to find common ground on an offer that beats what Vegas ultimately landed him for is a massive loss for the organization. We had 15+ months to negotiate a new deal, held the advantage of being the only team who could offer an 8th year and the advantage of being the only city he has lived in as an adult. We also had 4 days after he hit UFA to stay in touch and work on a contract that he would prefer to Vegas' offer. Despite all those advantages, we failed to retain a top 10 NHL D man who ultimately accepted a non-top-10 NHL D man contract. That is a complete and total failure.

The fact that Elliotte Friedman believes that negotiations got personal is extremely troubling. The fact that we are organizationally unwilling to offer a full NMC to anyone is extremely troubling for upcoming Parayko negotiations and the eventual ROR negotiation. The fact that we prioritized acquiring and extending Faulk more highly than Petro is somewhat troubling (the unexpected flat cap greatly magnified the consequences of this decision, which was defensible at the time).

The roster is worse today than it has been at any point over the last 2 seasons. We had 3 D men who played more than 17 minutes a night on our Cup run. Two of them are gone. Eddy was our 4th most used D man on the Cup run. He is gone. Those 3 players were replaced with Faulk, Krug and Scandella for a combined $16.25M against the cap. We haven't upgraded any of the bottom 5-7 D. The D has gotten noticeably worse, smaller, cost assets to acquire and isn't any cheaper than it would have been if we had simply paid our players market value.

We have made our team worse because we weren't willing to match or beat an offer that is noticeably less than what consensus top 10 NHL D men are worth. Our issue is reportedly an unwillingness to give up roster flexibility 5+ years down the road, yet in the last year we have given out an 8 year deal to a 29 year old, a 7 year deal to a 29 year old and a 7 year deal to a 28 year old. All of those contracts have full NTCs for the first 5 years and a 15 team no trade list for the remaining years. While each individual contract has more flexibility than a single contract with a NMC, there is objectively less flexibility in having 2 or 3 of those deals than there is a single player with a NMC.

The totality of Army's blue line construction leaves the group worse than it was last June. The totality of Army's roster construction is spending more money on that blue line right now than it could/would have been by simply leaving it intact last summer and giving guys market value (including Petro at $9M AAV). The totality of Army's roster construction sees two difficult-to-impossible to move contracts instead of simply giving one near-impossible to move contract to Petro. The totality of Army's roster construction has reduced the roster flexibility over the next 4 years by locking in two 7 year contracts and one 4 year contract. All of this has been done in the name of increasing roster flexibility 5+ years down the line, yet we have $13M locked into the blue line with 15 team no-trade clauses in years 5-7. So at best your flexibility compared to just having one NMC in years 5-8 is a wash.

The blueline got worse and we have no greater overall roster flexibility than we would have if we had given Petro a contract that beats the offer he got from Vegas. We had 15+ months to reach such an agreement with him and failed to do so. The Petro negotiation and the surrounding/resulting roster decisions was a complete and total failure.

We are spending $21.775 on a top 4 of:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk

This top 4 group costs $770k less:

Eddy-Petro
Scandella-Parayko

We gave up a former 1st round pick 1 year removed from the draft in order to build that first group. Additionally, that first group blocks Dunn from reaching his ceiling while the bottom group would have given him opportunities to be utilized to his strengths. The top group has two 7 year contracts with full NTCs in the first 5 years and 15 team no trade lists for years 6-7. The bottom group has one guy with a full NMC and one guy with a 4 year 10 team no trade list. Fun fact, last year Eddy finished the year just 1 even strength point behind Krug. They tied in even strength goals.

I think it’s pretty obvious the organization do not project Pietro as a Top 10 D-man going forward. You cite plenty of historical context of what he has accomplished. I’m not suggesting he falls off a cliff immediately, but I think the “top 10 defender” contract only makes sense in the context of him continuing to be in that group DURING that contract.

Rightly or wrongly, it’s pretty clear the Blues don’t project him that way. They offered value consistent with where they projected his performance.

Playing hardball that way is defensible if they spend the cap room on players they project more favorably to fill that hole. That’s another argument to have, regarding Faulk, Krug and whatever the final roster is for this team.

 

[BlueKnight]

I think what it boils down to is Petro didn’t really want to stay here for the remainder of his career, simple as that. He’s earned that right but its sad to see him go.

In going to wait and see what Berube/Van Ryn can do with this group of defenseman and see what they do during the season before getting too critical.

Yeah that is what I wonder too. I understand of wanting a new challenge and something new and I get that, He certainly has every right too, still sad to see him go.

 

[Ranksu]

It is a complete and total failure.

Petro is a Cup winner, an Olympic gold medalist, a 3 time end-of-season all star, and a consensus top 10 D man in the NHL. He finished 4th in Norris voting this season, has three total top 5 Norris voting finishes, has played the 6th most minutes of all NHL D men in the last 5 years, was 6th in points among D men this year and was 3rd in goals. He is 30 and every model/comparable player history suggests that he will be elite for 3ish years, a top pairing guy for 2ish years and then regress somewhere between top 4 and "serviceable" for the remainder. His Vegas contract is the 13th highest value contract among active NHL D men. 9 D men who signed deals under the current CBA will make more total dollars than Petro will on this deal.

Failing to find common ground on an offer that beats what Vegas ultimately landed him for is a massive loss for the organization. We had 15+ months to negotiate a new deal, held the advantage of being the only team who could offer an 8th year and the advantage of being the only city he has lived in as an adult. We also had 4 days after he hit UFA to stay in touch and work on a contract that he would prefer to Vegas' offer. Despite all those advantages, we failed to retain a top 10 NHL D man who ultimately accepted a non-top-10 NHL D man contract. That is a complete and total failure.

The fact that Elliotte Friedman believes that negotiations got personal is extremely troubling. The fact that we are organizationally unwilling to offer a full NMC to anyone is extremely troubling for upcoming Parayko negotiations and the eventual ROR negotiation. The fact that we prioritized acquiring and extending Faulk more highly than Petro is somewhat troubling (the unexpected flat cap greatly magnified the consequences of this decision, which was defensible at the time).

The roster is worse today than it has been at any point over the last 2 seasons. We had 3 D men who played more than 17 minutes a night on our Cup run. Two of them are gone. Eddy was our 4th most used D man on the Cup run. He is gone. Those 3 players were replaced with Faulk, Krug and Scandella for a combined $16.25M against the cap. We haven't upgraded any of the bottom 5-7 D. The D has gotten noticeably worse, smaller, cost assets to acquire and isn't any cheaper than it would have been if we had simply paid our players market value.

We have made our team worse because we weren't willing to match or beat an offer that is noticeably less than what consensus top 10 NHL D men are worth. Our issue is reportedly an unwillingness to give up roster flexibility 5+ years down the road, yet in the last year we have given out an 8 year deal to a 29 year old, a 7 year deal to a 29 year old and a 7 year deal to a 28 year old. All of those contracts have full NTCs for the first 5 years and a 15 team no trade list for the remaining years. While each individual contract has more flexibility than a single contract with a NMC, there is objectively less flexibility in having 2 or 3 of those deals than there is a single player with a NMC.

The totality of Army's blue line construction leaves the group worse than it was last June. The totality of Army's roster construction is spending more money on that blue line right now than it could/would have been by simply leaving it intact last summer and giving guys market value (including Petro at $9M AAV). The totality of Army's roster construction sees two difficult-to-impossible to move contracts instead of simply giving one near-impossible to move contract to Petro. The totality of Army's roster construction has reduced the roster flexibility over the next 4 years by locking in two 7 year contracts and one 4 year contract. All of this has been done in the name of increasing roster flexibility 5+ years down the line, yet we have $13M locked into the blue line with 15 team no-trade clauses in years 5-7. So at best your flexibility compared to just having one NMC in years 5-8 is a wash.

The blueline got worse and we have no greater overall roster flexibility than we would have if we had given Petro a contract that beats the offer he got from Vegas. We had 15+ months to reach such an agreement with him and failed to do so. The Petro negotiation and the surrounding/resulting roster decisions was a complete and total failure.

We are spending $21.775 on a top 4 of:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk

This top 4 group costs $770k less:

Eddy-Petro
Scandella-Parayko

We gave up a former 1st round pick 1 year removed from the draft in order to build that first group. Additionally, that first group blocks Dunn from reaching his ceiling while the bottom group would have given him opportunities to be utilized to his strengths. The top group has two 7 year contracts with full NTCs in the first 5 years and 15 team no trade lists for years 6-7. The bottom group has one guy with a full NMC and one guy with a 4 year 10 team no trade list. Fun fact, last year Eddy finished the year just 1 even strength point behind Krug. They tied in even strength goals.

I appreciate efford on this post. Well said. This should be pinned here and send to Tom Stillman + Doug Armstrong.

 

[joe galiba]

I don't think he wanted to stay, I don't think he wanted to go, I think he wanted the largest contract he could get
some guys will take lesser salaries to stay (or go) somewhere because of other factors - fan base, weather, family, big city vs small market, etc..
Petro decided that bonus structure, NMC structure, AAV were the more important factors to him and his family, and that the Vegas offer was superior than what was offered here based on those factors
his business, not mine

Personally, I have always thought that in the NFL and the NHL with harder caps that it is short sighted as it will ultimately put a weaker team around you

 

[Ranksu]

I think what it boils down to is Petro didn’t really want to stay here for the remainder of his career, simple as that. He’s earned that right but its sad to see him go.

In going to wait and see what Berube/Van Ryn can do with this group of defenseman and see what they do during the season before getting too critical.

Just a berube 's point of View Faulk and Krug acquistions were nothing like Chief type of players. Scandella in other hand look like Chief type of player.

I think Army fail on that part acquiring wrong type of players. Should have gone to get better 5on5 dmen. Like Toews.

 

[joe galiba]

I appreciate efford on this post. Well said. This should be pinned here and send to Tom Stillman + Doug Armstrong.

I am pretty sure that Army and Stillman absolutely know this

since the Blues bent on AAV, the NMC, and AAV, it appears to me that they recognized this

the fact that they know this, and bent on these, and Petro didn't sign here tells me all I really know about how the "negotiations" went

 

[scottyajak]

Losing Petro is one thing, but I'm as concerned about seven years of Faulk and Krug. The only way it makes sense is if Blues brass believes Parayko has another level and even then you have to sign him to a massive contract in two years.

 

[blues80]

Yeah that is what I wonder too. I understand of wanting a new challenge and something new and I get that, He certainly has every right too, still sad to see him go.

Gook at his vegas interview he called strickland a lisr

 

[BlueKnight]

Gook at his vegas interview he called strickland a lisr

I watched it. I think his agent might have screwed him. I don't know anymore

 

[blues80]

I watched it. I think his agent might have screwed him. I don't know anymore

He got half guernteed

 

[President Skroob]

Weird, because even after O'Reilly got here this team was shit for about the first 3 months of the season. I seem to recall we needed a couple changes in a couple other places before we got results.

I can't remember what those were, though. Probably not real significant. I'm sure we'd have had the same 2019 Cup run and all the resulting jubilation if we just stuck with what we had at about 9:00pm on November 18, 2019 and ridden that the rest of the way. Probably would have had as much if not more success this season, too.

‘sounds like one of those changes was adding Alex Pietrangelo to you.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

‘sounds like one of those changes was adding Alex Pietrangelo to you.

Looks like you don't have the first clue about anything that happened to this franchise between, say, November 18, 2018 and January 8, 2019. Maybe someone here can fill you in a bit.

 

[President Skroob]

Looks like you don't have the first clue about anything that happened to this franchise between, say, November 18, 2018 and January 8, 2019. Maybe someone here can fill you in a bit.

It wasn’t pietrangelo, then?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It wasn’t pietrangelo, then?

Reminder of how we got to this point:

And it was only after O’Reilly got here that we saw results. Weird.

Weird, because even after O'Reilly got here this team was shit for about the first 3 months of the season. I seem to recall we needed a couple changes in a couple other places before we got results.

I can't remember what those were, though. Probably not real significant. I'm sure we'd have had the same 2019 Cup run and all the resulting jubilation if we just stuck with what we had at about 9:00pm on November 18, 2019 and ridden that the rest of the way. Probably would have had as much if not more success this season, too.

‘sounds like one of those changes was adding Alex Pietrangelo to you.

Looks like you don't have the first clue about anything that happened to this franchise between, say, November 18, 2018 and January 8, 2019. Maybe someone here can fill you in a bit.

When you find even the smallest hint of proof that I think Alex Pietrangelo wasn't on the Blues roster until sometime in the 2018-19 season and didn't realize that he'd been here before then - back as far as, say, June 20, 2008 when the Blues took him 4th overall at the NHL Draft and then gave him the up-to-9 game tryout in both 2008-09 and 2009-10 before finally putting him on the NHL roster for good in 2010-11 - please ... do everyone a favor and post it.

Until then, quit trying to pretend you think you have any knowledge of my knowledge of Blues history, and spend your time and energy learning (or re-learning ... or perhaps both) how the 2018-19 season went for the Blues and the various significant events in that season and when they happened. When you think you have a semi-reasonable grasp of that, come back and we'll try this again.