2020-2021 St. Louis Blues: Well, ****.

[The Note]

What did JR say?

I'll post a snippet below but it is from this article (paywall) from last Friday after Petro hit UFA:

"It’s believed there are takers for Blues center Tyler Bozak, and perhaps defenseman Justin Faulk, but it would require Armstrong giving up draft picks and retaining salary."

He goes on to say:

"Similarly with Faulk, Armstrong might be able to find a taker for his new seven-year extension (with a $6.5 million AAV), but is he willing to surrender, let’s say, a second-round pick and retain salary?
Thus far, a source said, Armstrong hasn’t wanted to commit to those types of moves in order to sign Pietrangelo, who will turn 31 in January, to a long-term extension."

I don't see much there, and I don't think DA is going to punt on Faulk until the expansion draft at the earliest.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I'll post a snippet below but it is from this article (paywall) from last Friday after Petro hit UFA:

"It’s believed there are takers for Blues center Tyler Bozak, and perhaps defenseman Justin Faulk, but it would require Armstrong giving up draft picks and retaining salary."

He goes on to say:

"Similarly with Faulk, Armstrong might be able to find a taker for his new seven-year extension (with a $6.5 million AAV), but is he willing to surrender, let’s say, a second-round pick and retain salary?
Thus far, a source said, Armstrong hasn’t wanted to commit to those types of moves in order to sign Pietrangelo, who will turn 31 in January, to a long-term extension."

I don't see much there, and I don't think DA is going to punt on Faulk until the expansion draft at the earliest.

That is a long way from saying he’s shopping Faulk. This discussion is probably moot anyway. He’s not going to pay assets to move Faulk only so he can pay assets to obtain another RHD to replace him. I’ll wager with anyone here today that Faulk is protected in the expansion draft.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I'll post a snippet below but it is from this article (paywall) from last Friday after Petro hit UFA:

"It’s believed there are takers for Blues center Tyler Bozak, and perhaps defenseman Justin Faulk, but it would require Armstrong giving up draft picks and retaining salary."

He goes on to say:

"Similarly with Faulk, Armstrong might be able to find a taker for his new seven-year extension (with a $6.5 million AAV), but is he willing to surrender, let’s say, a second-round pick and retain salary?
Thus far, a source said, Armstrong hasn’t wanted to commit to those types of moves in order to sign Pietrangelo, who will turn 31 in January, to a long-term extension."

I don't see much there, and I don't think DA is going to punt on Faulk until the expansion draft at the earliest.

That is JR speculating. I don't doubt Army surveyed landscape if he needed to move $ to sign Petro, but that isn't same as saying he is looking to dump Faulk.

 

[The Note]

That is JR speculating. I don't doubt Army surveyed landscape if he needed to move $ to sign Petro, but that isn't same as saying he is looking to dump Faulk.

Never said it was. Was simply posting what was being referred to earlier.

 

[The Note]

I’ll wager with anyone here today that Faulk is protected in the expansion draft.

I think you're probably right. I think it is 100% the wrong decision, but I do think you're right.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

- Anyone know the status of the AHL season? Have their been any announcements or time lines given?

December 4 is the target start date.

So, my question is, are the Blues operating under an internal cap? Yes, they still seem committed to spending to the salary cap, but the fact that the contract structure was such a sticking point leads me to believe the margins are thin. I’m sure every team is hurting financially right now compared to normal. But is this contract dispute a reflection of where the Blues ownership just can’t sustain actual dollars out? They need their contract structure to be more financially efficient?

I think it depends on who you ask and how they're defining those things. I'm sure the Blues can't spend say $125 million and pay $90 million of it on July 1, but I also think they're comfortable spending more than $70 million and $0 of it on July 1. Where in the middle they're OK, uncomfortable but OK and start to feel pain, who knows. And, it's possible that ownership has guideposts up and Armstrong is working farther inside of that than ownership would say he could. [Cue comment about Stillman letting Armstrong make the business decisions.] They certainly have more flexibility after winning the Cup, but how much of that they're comfortable using is unknown.

 

[Em etah Eh]

Losing Faulk in the expansion draft or paying to take him is going to be tough. Not that a new franchise wants to have their first season during a pandemic, but I have a feeling the cap freeze is going to really help set Seattle with some nice pieces.

There are going to be plenty of teams trying to move out bigger contracts like Faulks and the Kraken are going to have a lot of options. They’d also be wise to not go much higher than the cap floor unless the expensive contracts they are getting are worth the value.

Have GMs learned from the Vegas draft or are they not going to have a choice but to move out some big pieces to keep most of their rosters in tact? I know we’ve been hoping that the Faulk deal was done with the idea that we could make a run with our D core and then use him as expansion bait. But he has been underwhelming and we don’t have much of a core to protect...

 

[Itsnotatrap]

If ownership stays the same in Ottawa, I’ll lay down my marker and say we’ll be trading Faulk there in the summer of 2024 when he’ll only be getting paid 13.75 over the remaining 3 years with a annual cap hit of 6.5. If not there, whoever else is in financial distress.

Of course, Faulk has a trade list in there too, so maybe that takes some air out of those tires. Main point being that if he doesn’t completely decline to dust, that will not be an immovable situation over the last 3 years. To do it next year....not sure it will be realistic.

 

[simon IC]

Faulk is better than any of those alternatives.

No he is not. Not even close.

 

[simon IC]

First, JR has literally no insight into what Blues are thinking unless he has Petro's agents feeding him one-sided info. Second, when did he say that? And third, if we want shutdown pair have Parayko/Scandella. Fourth, Hamilton is great player but is offensive D who isn't exactly sterling in own end. Fifth, those other 3 guys aren't near as good as Faulk.

Larsson is an excellent defensive defenseman, I would have him in a heartbeat over Faulk. Savard and Montour are also much better overall defensemen than Faulk. I don't get where this over-valuing of Faulk comes from.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Larsson is an excellent defensive defenseman, I would have him ina heartbeat over Faulk. Savard and Montour are also much better overall defensemen than Faulk. I don't get where this over-valuing of Faulk comes from.

Larsson is slow, can rarely stay healthy(he's only managed 80+% of a season 3 of his 9 years), and can't get the puck out of his own zone to save his soul.
No argument on Savard.
Montour certainly isn't, he played sheltered offensive minutes at 5v5, yet he bled scoring chances against. The only thing that kept him afloat was a 103.3PDO.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'll post a snippet below but it is from this article (paywall) from last Friday after Petro hit UFA:

"It’s believed there are takers for Blues center Tyler Bozak, and perhaps defenseman Justin Faulk, but it would require Armstrong giving up draft picks and retaining salary."

He goes on to say:

"Similarly with Faulk, Armstrong might be able to find a taker for his new seven-year extension (with a $6.5 million AAV), but is he willing to surrender, let’s say, a second-round pick and retain salary?
Thus far, a source said, Armstrong hasn’t wanted to commit to those types of moves in order to sign Pietrangelo, who will turn 31 in January, to a long-term extension."

I don't see much there, and I don't think DA is going to punt on Faulk until the expansion draft at the earliest.

I don't think much of that is a surprise. No one is taking all of 7/45.5 on Faulk without getting something as an incentive, and having to drop a 2nd to unload it and retain salary pretty much admits that was a mistake and everyone else realizes it.

Pre-Vegas signing Pietrangelo, would I have said making room for Pietrangelo made sense? Only if you're really trying to focus short-term and you're admitting you'll let whatever happens after that happen. Now, would I say that anyone should get moved? Sure, if you think you can upgrade the roster, but I think it will have to be dollar-for-dollar moves and I don't know how many (if any) guys we'd be willing to move would be desired by someone else and they'd be looking to move someone that we'd like to have and would fit under the cap for both teams.

Does Faulk get exposed? Hell yes he does. Does he get taken? Only if Armstrong sends something - at least a 1st - to the Kraken to take him, because I guarantee other teams are going to be lobbing assets at Seattle to take their overpriced mistakes instead of plucking young talent with significant upside.

 

[The Note]

Losing Faulk in the expansion draft or paying to take him is going to be tough. Not that a new franchise wants to have their first season during a pandemic, but I have a feeling the cap freeze is going to really help set Seattle with some nice pieces.

There are going to be plenty of teams trying to move out bigger contracts like Faulks and the Kraken are going to have a lot of options. They’d also be wise to not go much higher than the cap floor unless the expensive contracts they are getting are worth the value.

Have GMs learned from the Vegas draft or are they not going to have a choice but to move out some big pieces to keep most of their rosters in tact? I know we’ve been hoping that the Faulk deal was done with the idea that we could make a run with our D core and then use him as expansion bait. But he has been underwhelming and we don’t have much of a core to protect...

It will be tough but you have to expose him and hope either Seattle takes him off your hands or make it worth their while. The second part is what I’m sure will not happen.

 

[Xanadude]

Larsson is an excellent defensive defenseman, I would have him ina heartbeat over Faulk. Savard and Montour are also much better overall defensemen than Faulk. I don't get where this over-valuing of Faulk comes from.

I'd like Larsson, but Edmonton got Barrie as an offense-first righty. Montour would be awesome too, but I'm not sure Buffalo will ever trade with us again ^_^

Savard might be more likely, but Columbus already has Werenski and Jones to provide offense on the backend.

To be clear, I'd prefer all three over Faulk, even if just due to contract differential.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Have GMs learned from the Vegas draft or are they not going to have a choice but to move out some big pieces to keep most of their rosters in tact? I know we’ve been hoping that the Faulk deal was done with the idea that we could make a run with our D core and then use him as expansion bait. But he has been underwhelming and we don’t have much of a core to protect...

Look at GM responses to various unforced errors over the years and their incessant complaining about it followed by their rush to do it yet again. That should tell you if they've learned anything from the Vegas draft and won't repeat it with Seattle.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

Larsson is an excellent defensive defenseman, I would have him ina heartbeat over Faulk. Savard and Montour are also much better overall defensemen than Faulk. I don't get where this over-valuing of Faulk comes from.

I’d prefer Savard the most out of the 3 defensive guys, but I also could see them grabbing Hamilton, and giving him and Krug heavy offensive zone starts & PP1 time.

All of these scenarios end up with Parayko playing with either Scandella or Mikkola, which is my preferred method of how this defense ends up looking. I’d also like Krug to play with either a really solid 2D like that group(aka our Carlo), or another offensive stud like Dougie.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Larsson is an excellent defensive defenseman, I would have him ina heartbeat over Faulk. Savard and Montour are also much better overall defensemen than Faulk. I don't get where this over-valuing of Faulk comes from.

Larsson is quite limited. Savard is strong defensively and physical but terrible with puck. Montour barely got qualified. Savard is only 1 of the 3 who is truly a top 4 D.

 

[Celtic Note]

December 4 is the target start date.


I think it depends on who you ask and how they're defining those things. I'm sure the Blues can't spend say $125 million and pay $90 million of it on July 1, but I also think they're comfortable spending more than $70 million and $0 of it on July 1. Where in the middle they're OK, uncomfortable but OK and start to feel pain, who knows. And, it's possible that ownership has guideposts up and Armstrong is working farther inside of that than ownership would say he could. [Cue comment about Stillman letting Armstrong make the business decisions.] They certainly have more flexibility after winning the Cup, but how much of that they're comfortable using is unknown.

I was thinking about this and I wonder how much the renovations cause the Blues to tighten the belt more than maybe they would, especially with no fans in the stands? I mean, normally on development projects of that scale, you take out a construction loan with pretty high interest rates and then transition it to a permanent loan after the construction is up. There is a lot of money likely funneling into that effort. The permanent loans normally only have terms of 7-10 years with a 30 year amortization schedule, meaning that the loan payments are not as bad as on a 10 year schedule, but it also requires full payoff at the end of the 7-10 year term. All that construction was done a year ago, so the permanent loan should be in place now

 

[MissouriMook]

I was thinking about this and I wonder how much the renovations cause the Blues to tighten the belt more than maybe they would, especially with no fans in the stands? I mean, normally on development projects of that scale, you take out a construction loan with pretty high interest rates and then transition it to a permanent loan after the construction is up. There is a lot of money likely funneling into that effort. The permanent loans normally only have terms of 7-10 years with a 30 year amortization schedule, meaning that the loan payments are not as bad as on a 10 year schedule, but it also requires full payoff at the end of the 7-10 year term. All that construction was done a year ago, so the permanent loan should be in place now

With the make up of the ownership group, I would guess that the team has very favorable interest rates. It’s certainly not nothing when you may be shuttered for 12-18 months while unable to earn a return on your investment, but I would guess that they are paying 3% or less on that money.

 

[Celtic Note]

With the make up of the ownership group, I would guess that the team has very favorable interest rates. It’s certainly not nothing when you may be shuttered for 12-18 months while unable to earn a return on your investment, but I would guess that they are paying 3% or less on that money.

Commercial real estate loans are normally higher than residential loans. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were paying 6-7%. Construction loans can go up to 20%, thou I bet they were closer to 12%.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Commercial real estate loans are normally higher than residential loans. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were paying 6-7%. Construction loans can go up to 20%, thou I bet they were closer to 12%.

If they got bank debt was probably sub 5%.

 

[Celtic Note]

If they got bank debt was probably sub 5%.

It’s my understanding that those loans normally have a cap and based on the extent of the renovations, I would assume they are in the higher bracket.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I was thinking about this and I wonder how much the renovations cause the Blues to tighten the belt more than maybe they would, especially with no fans in the stands? I mean, normally on development projects of that scale, you take out a construction loan with pretty high interest rates and then transition it to a permanent loan after the construction is up. There is a lot of money likely funneling into that effort. The permanent loans normally only have terms of 7-10 years with a 30 year amortization schedule, meaning that the loan payments are not as bad as on a 10 year schedule, but it also requires full payoff at the end of the 7-10 year term. All that construction was done a year ago, so the permanent loan should be in place now

Great points. I wonder what, if any, provisions would exist that could trigger a renegotiation in the loans. Given that I think I saw funding came from the state for this, and given that I'm sure this isn't the only project some state has put money toward, I suspect you're going to see a lot of entities who are supposed to make payments on a schedule reach out and ask for a delay or extension on those payments due to impacts arising from the pandemic.

To your question: I don't think the Blues will be the only franchise having to do belt-tightening. We've already seen it with other teams in other sports as it regards front-office operations, it remains to be seen how/if it extends to the players. Given that the cap will stay at $81.5 million short-term and could hang there or barely above depending on how long society continues to be impacted, I think as more contracts expire and current cash flows are impacted, you'll see more pressure on GMs to rein in salaries to stay within those cash flows.

Place bets on how long it takes for Fehr to scream collusion and threaten to go to court over it.

 

[MissouriMook]

Commercial real estate loans are normally higher than residential loans. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were paying 6-7%. Construction loans can go up to 20%, thou I bet they were closer to 12%.

There is no way that group is paying more than prime on anything collateralized. I’m paying 4% right now on equipment financing (depreciating vs appreciating asset) from a community bank and I’m a nobody.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

Some interesting discussion with Bill Armstrong on this podcast with Custance. A little Blues talk in there, obviously.

‎The Full 60 with Craig Custance: Bill Armstrong - If you want to be in the desert, you have to bleed for it. on Apple Podcasts