What would you do if you were GM?

[Thallis]

You're allowed to think whatever you want just as long as you recognize no one knows the whole story and the full reasons why he made his decision. Journalists get information wrong all the time and we know agents feed them misinformation to help their client out at times. I will always maintain that if his heart was truly in St. Louis then our offer should have been good enough. I also think both sides knew long before the deadline that he wouldn't be coming back for whatever reason.

Regardless, I cheer for the logo on the front and not the name on the back. He was well within his right to choose Vegas' offer over ours, but I stopping being a fan of his once he packed his bags. Seeing Blues fans whining about Petro 4 years later is pretty lame if you ask me, but to each their own.

I cheer for the logo on the front which is why I lament the decision to let our most important player walk during free agency, leading to a decline in our success while said player just won a Stanley cup and is still a 1D 4 years later. These decisions matter to the logo on the front. We are in hockey purgatory because this decision ended our championship window.

 

[Reality Czech]

I cheer for the logo on the front which is why I lament the decision to let our most important player walk during free agency, leading to a decline in our success while said player just won a Stanley cup and is still a 1D 4 years later. These decisions matter to the logo on the front. We are in hockey purgatory because this decision ended our championship window.

So Petro would turn this team into a Cup contender on his own? Is that what you're saying? One player doesn't make a team no matter who it is. We could have just as easily declined with Petro sticking around. Let's see if he truly earns that $8.8 million the last three years of his deal because he wasn't that impressive this year and his skills are obviously diminishing.

One could just as easily say that Petro's decision had the same effect. He put himself above the team. Some leaders have chosen to take just a bit less for the good of the team or because they were happy where they were. Clearly that ain't Petro. I'm done talking about this, there is no point anymore.

 

[Thallis]

So Petro would turn this team into a Cup contender on his own? Is that what you're saying? One player doesn't make a team no matter who it is. We could have just as easily declined with Petro sticking around. Let's see if he truly earns that $8.8 million the last three years of his deal because he wasn't that impressive this year and his skills are obviously diminishing.

One could just as easily say that Petro's decision had the same effect. He put himself above the team. Some leaders have chosen to take just a bit less for the good of the team or because they were happy where they were. Clearly that ain't Petro. I'm done talking about this, there is no point anymore.

The loss of Pietrangelo demonstrably created a hole in the roster that still hasn't been filled and resulted in us no longer being a serious cup contender, yes. If you want to be mad at someone for getting what they're worth, that's your prerogative. I'm not about to ask my boss for less money to do my job, and I don't expect that of an athlete either. We had plenty of space to be in a better position for the last 4 years had we given it to him, just look at the 13 million we're spending on the guys to replace him.

 

[joe galiba]

The NHL just expanded twice and is headed to more expansions. NMC protects from that. Players of Pietrangelo's caliber get NMCs. It's important to all of them enough that they negotiate in it.

Regardless, I'm going to consider it unlikely that Pietrangelo is doing PR for himself 4 years after the fact and put more stock into the reporting than the suggestions of coping fans who have a vested desire in making him look like the bad guy.

So it is important for players of Petro's caliber?
so it is a EGO thing?

if he went to Vegas for more money or because that is where he wants to live, I am fine with that, good for him
if he left because the "perks everyone else gets" were not there, then buh-bye

 

[Majorityof1]

You're allowed to think whatever you want just as long as you recognize no one knows the whole story and the full reasons why he made his decision. Journalists get information wrong all the time and we know agents feed them misinformation to help their client out at times. I will always maintain that if his heart was truly in St. Louis then our offer should have been good enough. I also think both sides knew long before the deadline that he wouldn't be coming back for whatever reason.

Regardless, I cheer for the logo on the front and not the name on the back. He was well within his right to choose Vegas' offer over ours, but I stopping being a fan of his once he packed his bags. Seeing Blues fans whining about Petro 4 years later is pretty lame if you ask me, but to each their own.

Why is it his fault that his heart wasn't 100% in St. Louis? Is there no onus on the team and GM to bridge that gap? Would you say the same if Army offered him league minimum? If his heart was truly here $60M wouldn't matter, right?

The fact of the matter is, it does not matter one iota who was at fault. What matters is that the two sides could not come to an agreement and one side went on to win a Cup, the other side is in a purgatory of mediocrity.

We needed to keep Pietrangelo and due to how difficult getting a 1D is, we should have gone all in on keeping him. That means offer an NMC, that means not hedging your bets by trading for and signing Faulk BEFORE ever opening formal negotiations with Petro. That means signing him to a contract that might be an overpay at the end. Because guess what, we are still going to have the bad Faulk and Krug contracts then anyway, and we will have been without a 1D that entire stretch.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

So it is important for players of Petro's caliber?
so it is a EGO thing?

if he went to Vegas for more money or because that is where he wants to live, I am fine with that, good for him
if he left because the "perks everyone else gets" were not there, then buh-bye

So what if he left for more perks that everyone else gets? I know most - nearly all? - the people here will never be in a situation that's remotely close to what Pietrangelo found himself in, but I would never begrudge someone for leaving for what they think is a better opportunity that offers more money, bigger bonuses, higher chances of success, and a few perks they're never getting in the current spot. If you're highly coveted by others, you take the money, the perks, the bonuses, you seek out success. You don't take less - maybe relatively speaking, a lot less - because of some sense of loyalty to your first, current employer, especially when your current employer thinks it's special, ignores market value, wants you to take less "for the team" and doesn't offer to show you the same loyalty it's demanding you show the employer.

Some of the mud-slinging is what employees do when someone bails for greener pastures and it works out for them while everyone left behind falls increasingly into a lousy situation, loses out on bonuses, gets smaller or no raises, has an uncertain future and that person who walked ... maybe wouldn't have fixed everything, but certainly had the tools that would have helped stem some of those problems.

No, instead it's I know we're not great and he's elsewhere doing better, but ... f*** that asshole for leaving, not like we'd be any better off with him anyway.