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

[The Note]

I think a lot of this conversation boils down to how you view the immediate and long term outlook of the team. I tend to find myself falling more on the "this whole thing could go sideways" spectrum of things rather than the "this is still a contending team" side. Much more goes into that than Faulk and his contract (I believe everyone knows where I stand on that), though it certainly plays a factor. I don't think people hoping/expecting the team to be contenders are in a land of "sunshine and lollipops" I just think they see one set of outcomes or possibilities and I see another. From where I sit, this is the most tenuous position the organization has found itself in, in some time. Perhaps things break their way and I'm wrong. That would be ideal as I'm a fan of the team. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think a lot of this conversation boils down to how you view the immediate and long term outlook of the team. I tend to find myself falling more on the "this whole thing could go sideways" spectrum of things rather than the "this is still a contending team" side. Much more goes into that than Faulk and his contract (I believe everyone knows where I stand on that), though it certainly plays a factor. I don't think people hoping/expecting the team to be contenders are in a land of "sunshine and lollipops" I just think they see one set of outcomes or possibilities and I see another. From where I sit, this is the most tenuous position the organization has found itself in, in some time. Perhaps things break their way and I'm wrong. That would be ideal as I'm a fan of the team. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Most of my comments last page were simply pointing out the fuller context of Dom’s model. I didn’t even give my own opinion of the moves. The model gives justification for letting Pietro walk, somewhat surprisingly.

I’ll also point out that it’s possible for there to be a no-win scenario where Pietro falls off sharply AND the Blues don’t maintain contender status. In other words, maybe they decline and keeping Pietro wouldn’t change it.

I’m not really sure who the posters supposedly are who are in denial. I would rather have Pietro, but I realize you can’t write blank checks in a salary cap league. This idea that the Blues are chumps now seems excessively negative and does a disservice to the good players who are still here and who contributed to the Cup team.

As for my own opinion: I am trying to understand what goes into Armstrong’s decisions and try to present what I think that decision-making probably was. It’s not always obvious and we have to make some assumptions when we don’t get full disclosure of the negotiations. It doesn’t mean I mindlessly agree with Armstrong. But I think its important to engage with his arguments, if he were here to make them.

Going into the season, I’m more worried about the play in goal than I am about how this D corps shapes up. There are enough good players to do some cool stuff with the defense and create some matchup headaches for opponents. I think that will be fun to watch. But we’ll need solid goaltending and probably less rebound-prone style in order to be successful.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

When are we going to end this denial? We didn't let Petro walk because we couldn't afford him. We let him walk because he was asking for money and/or contract terms we were unwilling to give him. It had nothing...zero...NADA...to do with Faulk's contract blocking cap space.

Maybe ... maybe not. I disagree that we necessarily didn't sign Pietrangelo because of his demands / we were unwilling to give him what we thought he wanted. I think there's at least some evidence that there was a conscious decision by Armstrong after the Cup run to move on. Unless/until more details come out, we won't know what the real story was, but I still maintain that what happened was non-accidental.

I agree, Faulk's contract didn't eat up the cap space that would have been needed to keep Pietrangelo. Faulk's contract + Schenn's contract + Scandella's contract did, though.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

All indications are Petro priced himself out of here. It’s reasonable to infer he was asking for far more than he eventually got. Army likely had a number he was willing to pay for Petro and when Petro wouldn’t bend to that he moved on. Just like he did with Backes. Faulk was hedge against Petro leaving, not impetus for it.

 

[Blueline2757]

All indications are Petro priced himself out of here. It’s reasonable to infer he was asking for far more than he eventually got. Army likely had a number he was willing to pay for Petro and when Petro wouldn’t bend to that he moved on. Just like he did with Backes. Faulk was hedge against Petro leaving, not impetus for it.

Pietrangelo didn't price himself out, he is a top 5 defenseman and when you look at contracts of other top defenseman they have either have a NMC or bonuses or sometimes a combination of both. He wanted to get what he deserved and rightfully so. DA failed to see his value and now it's one of the biggest blunders ever. Backes was different which I was all for moving on from him at the time, because what he wanted would be albatross as Backes was already worn down but Petro is totally different from Backes.

 

[Majorityof1]

Even when used properly? That pretty much never happened at all last year.



We didn't need him... until we did. We had 2 superior RHD... until we didn't. If there is one thing we have learned is that maybe his acquisition was related to a belief we weren't going to be able to meet Petro's demands after all.


When are we going to end this denial? We didn't let Petro walk because we couldn't afford him. We let him walk because he was asking for money and/or contract terms we were unwilling to give him. It had nothing...zero...NADA...to do with Faulk's contract blocking cap space.

He had 358 minutes with JayBo, which was our 2nd most iced pair. He had 320 minutes with Dunn in a sheltered, offensive role on the right side. He didn't produce on either pair. Sub 50% on GF% xGF%, SCF%, and HDSF%. Very few points as well.

We didn't need him, until we still didn't need him. Even losing Petro and signing Krug to balance the pairs, he is an inadaquate replacement. Now we have too many PP-dependent offensive D as opposed to too many RHD.

No, we didn't let Petro walk just because of cap space. But the money complicated things, and also acording to rumours so did the slap in the face of signing his replacement before he hit UFA. Even if Faulk's contract didn't block Petro, it blocked a better fitting replacement. Brodie signed for cheaper. Even Barrie is a better version of Faulk for cheaper.

 

[Majorityof1]

Thank you. It’s intellectually dishonest to repeat the fallacy that Faulk’s contract stood in Pietro’s way. The team demonstrably paid all 3 of Pietro, Parayko and Faulk last year. They had the cap space to accommodate the contract Vegas just gave Pietro. The front office simply drew a line based on his value, which included limits on items like the clauses and bonuses. But it was a choice of where that line existed of where the contract would outweigh his benefit. We have been told they offered him 8x8. How did Faulk’s contract keep them from offering that? It didn’t.

I can respect the argument that Armstrong was simply wrong, and that Pietro’s value was enough that the higher contract and bonuses was justified. But that is much different than pretending he’d somehow handcuffed himself with Faulk. At worst Faulk would have been redundant and overpaid, but he still fit. And it’s not like there wouldn’t have been avenues to address moving Faulk if it came to that AFTER signing Pietro. But it would have been a move for the sake of roster balance, not cap compliance.

These kinds of statements vary significantly depending on when in the course of the contract you take that comparison. Flat cap notwithstanding, Faulk’s position among highest paid defenders is only going to recede as the years go along. If you made the list in 4 years, I bet he’ll be squarely in the 2nd pairing numbers. And as you say, ELC guys need to be acknowledged.

If he were a free agent this offseason, he’d have received less. But this contract was pre-pandemic.

I don’t think any of us are arguing that he isn’t overpaid, and potentially by a lot if we don’t see better production going forward. But he wasn’t signed to a contract that implies he’s a Pietro replacement. On the Blues, his contract says 2/3 defender, especially when Parayko gets his comparable age contract.

We don't have the cap to add $8.8M. We can't even add Dunn unless Steen or Tarasenko miss the whole year (or are moved before hitting the cap). We could make moves to fit Dunn and Pietro, but we would have had to make moves. As I said, that makes the cap on Pietro complicated where it would have been easier if we didn't have Faulk. That might not be why we didn't sign Pietrangelo. Armstrong might not have given him $8.8 with bonus money and a NMC even if we had $40M in cap space. But it is disingenuous to say we easily could have fit $8.8M AAV when we are over the cap with Dunn unsigned and no word that Steen or Tarasenko are done for the year.

As for comparing Faulk's contract, it will obviously get lower as the cap starts to rise again. But he could also get worse. You don't really give 7 years to middle pairing guys. In terms of comparable, McDonough signed for a little more, and Meyers and Ellis signed for a little less at the same time. Muzzin signed for cheaper in February before the season was cancelled/postponed. Those guys are all much better than Faulk, even being the most generous to Faulk. So Faulk was an overpay compared to guys who signed at the same time.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Maybe ... maybe not. I disagree that we necessarily didn't sign Pietrangelo because of his demands / we were unwilling to give him what we thought he wanted. I think there's at least some evidence that there was a conscious decision by Armstrong after the Cup run to move on. Unless/until more details come out, we won't know what the real story was, but I still maintain that what happened was non-accidental.

I agree, Faulk's contract didn't eat up the cap space that would have been needed to keep Pietrangelo. Faulk's contract + Schenn's contract + Scandella's contract did, though.

I think this might be true, that the team never did feel comfortable with a long extension. Maybe they anticipate a more precipitous decline than the more optimistic projections. But I have a hard time squaring an 8x8 offer with a team posture to deliberately move on. That’s a pretty fair number and there was a decent chance he’d decide to take it, in order to keep his family in St Louis, stay with the guys, yadda yadda yadda.

It’s an interesting notion, trying to get inside Armstrong’s head and dissecting the early negotiations or lack thereof. I doubt the front office ever viewed things so negatively that they purposefully didn’t want to re-sign Pietro to a reasonable offer. I mean, it’s a proven winning formula, so of course they’d want to keep him in the short term at least. Reading all the tea leaves, I think the Blues’ projections for Pietro are not very kind after the next 4 years. I think they view that contract as being dead weight sooner than Dom’s model does, for example.

I wonder 5 or 6 years from now how many people will look back reflectively to see if the front office was right to draw the line where they did.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

We don't have the cap to add $8.8M. We can't even add Dunn unless Steen or Tarasenko miss the whole year (or are moved before hitting the cap). We could make moves to fit Dunn and Pietro, but we would have had to make moves. As I said, that makes the cap on Pietro complicated where it would have been easier if we didn't have Faulk. That might not be why we didn't sign Pietrangelo. Armstrong might not have given him $8.8 with bonus money and a NMC even if we had $40M in cap space. But it is disingenuous to say we easily could have fit $8.8M AAV when we are over the cap with Dunn unsigned and no word that Steen or Tarasenko are done for the year.

As for comparing Faulk's contract, it will obviously get lower as the cap starts to rise again. But he could also get worse. You don't really give 7 years to middle pairing guys. In terms of comparable, McDonough signed for a little more, and Meyers and Ellis signed for a little less at the same time. Muzzin signed for cheaper in February before the season was cancelled/postponed. Those guys are all much better than Faulk, even being the most generous to Faulk. So Faulk was an overpay compared to guys who signed at the same time.

My interpretation of what Armstrong has said is that Steen is done, period. Of course he can’t/won’t come out and say it that way, but I’m pretty comfortable interpreting it that way. If this is indeed correct, FROM ARMSTRONG’S POV there was plenty of cap room for the 8.8 if need be. But the bottom line, as you agreed, is that cap ceiling restraints weren’t the line Armstrong drew with Pietro. They could have paid that salary if there was an appetite to do it. There wasn’t, and the reasons why are left for us to infer.

You’re right about Faulk. Maybe that contract is bad now, is bad this coming season, and stays bad forever. I don’t have an argument there, other than to expect him to get more favorable usage this year compared with last season.

 

[Blueline2757]

I think this might be true, that the team never did feel comfortable with a long extension. Maybe they anticipate a more precipitous decline than the more optimistic projections. But I have a hard time squaring an 8x8 offer with a team posture to deliberately move on. That’s a pretty fair number and there was a decent chance he’d decide to take it, in order to keep his family in St Louis, stay with the guys, yadda yadda yadda.

It’s an interesting notion, trying to get inside Armstrong’s head and dissecting the early negotiations or lack thereof. I doubt the front office ever viewed things so negatively that they purposefully didn’t want to re-sign Pietro to a reasonable offer. I mean, it’s a proven winning formula, so of course they’d want to keep him in the short term at least. Reading all the tea leaves, I think the Blues’ projections for Pietro are not very kind after the next 4 years. I think they view that contract as being dead weight sooner than Dom’s model does, for example.

I wonder 5 or 6 years from now how many people will look back reflectively to see if the front office was right to draw the line where they did.

Of course he would've taken it if he got the no movement and bonus like he wanted.

I've always compared Pietrangelo to being a carbon copy of Niklas Lidstrom who was very good up until he retired and I see the same in Petro. The models that the Blues used are flawed because they didn't want to pay him what he deserves. Sure the last 2 1/2 years of 8 years of a Petro contract I see his skill diminishing somewhat but he still would be good. 7 years of Pietrangelo is sure of a hell better than 7 years of Faulk and Krug who are going to albatross's in 2 years. The narrative of Petro falling off a cliff I just don't buy it, I see Petro being just as good as Nik Lidstrom was.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Pietrangelo didn't price himself out, he is a top 5 defenseman and when you look at contracts of other top defenseman they have either have a NMC or bonuses or sometimes a combination of both. He wanted to get what he deserved and rightfully so. DA failed to see his value and now it's one of the biggest blunders ever. Backes was different which I was all for moving on from him at the time, because what he wanted would be albatross as Backes was already worn down but Petro is totally different from Backes.

He priced himself above what Blues were willing to pay. And while at his best he may approach top 5, he hasn’t consistently been and likely won’t be going forward.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Of course he would've taken it if he got the no movement and bonus like he wanted.

I've always compared Pietrangelo to being a carbon copy of Niklas Lidstrom who was very good up until he retired and I see the same in Petro. The models that the Blues used are flawed because they didn't want to pay him what he deserves. Sure the last 2 1/2 years of 8 years of a Petro contract I see his skill diminishing somewhat but he still would be good. 7 years of Pietrangelo is sure of a hell better than 7 years of Faulk and Krug who are going to albatross's in 2 years. The narrative of Petro falling off a cliff I just don't buy it, I see Petro being just as good as Nik Lidstrom was.

You are speculating on what Petro would have taken but he clearly didn’t take what was offered. That is all we know.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Of course he would've taken it if he got the no movement and bonus like he wanted.

I've always compared Pietrangelo to being a carbon copy of Niklas Lidstrom who was very good up until he retired and I see the same in Petro. The models that the Blues used are flawed because they didn't want to pay him what he deserves. Sure the last 2 1/2 years of 8 years of a Petro contract I see his skill diminishing somewhat but he still would be good. 7 years of Pietrangelo is sure of a hell better than 7 years of Faulk and Krug who are going to albatross's in 2 years. The narrative of Petro falling off a cliff I just don't buy it, I see Petro being just as good as Nik Lidstrom was.

Petro couldn’t hold Lidstrom’s jock. He isn’t close to as good as Nik was and how Lidstrom aged is of little consequence in projecting decline of significantly lesser player.

 

[MissouriMook]

Pietrangelo is a top 5 defenseman and when you look at contracts of other top 5 defenseman they have either have a NMC or bonuses or sometimes a combination of both. Pietrangelo wanted both and that is what you pay to keep your captain and a #1 top 5 defenseman and the reason we let Petro walk was Armstrong failed in seeing Petro's value to the team. The Blues are worse team because of it.

The argument I was refuting was that the Faulk extension prevented us from being able to offer Petro enough to stay. Your argument that Army should have given Petro what he wanted doesn’t address that issue at all, and is frankly getting exhausting.

 

[MissouriMook]

Maybe ... maybe not. I disagree that we necessarily didn't sign Pietrangelo because of his demands / we were unwilling to give him what we thought he wanted. I think there's at least some evidence that there was a conscious decision by Armstrong after the Cup run to move on. Unless/until more details come out, we won't know what the real story was, but I still maintain that what happened was non-accidental.

I agree, Faulk's contract didn't eat up the cap space that would have been needed to keep Pietrangelo. Faulk's contract + Schenn's contract + Scandella's contract did, though.

The difference between what we were reported to have offered Petro in AAV and what he accepted from Vegas was essentially the salary of one league minimum player. The argument that we couldn’t offer him that money holds no water. It’s not that we couldn’t, it’s that we wouldn’t.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think this might be true, that the team never did feel comfortable with a long extension. Maybe they anticipate a more precipitous decline than the more optimistic projections. But I have a hard time squaring an 8x8 offer with a team posture to deliberately move on. That’s a pretty fair number and there was a decent chance he’d decide to take it, in order to keep his family in St Louis, stay with the guys, yadda yadda yadda.

It’s an interesting notion, trying to get inside Armstrong’s head and dissecting the early negotiations or lack thereof. I doubt the front office ever viewed things so negatively that they purposefully didn’t want to re-sign Pietro to a reasonable offer. I mean, it’s a proven winning formula, so of course they’d want to keep him in the short term at least. Reading all the tea leaves, I think the Blues’ projections for Pietro are not very kind after the next 4 years. I think they view that contract as being dead weight sooner than Dom’s model does, for example.

I wonder 5 or 6 years from now how many people will look back reflectively to see if the front office was right to draw the line where they did.

I still struggle with the report that when Pietrangelo wanted to talk contract, Armstrong punted citing future uncertainty (not knowing the cap in the future, not knowing if the CBA would be extended, etc.) - but within 3 months and with nothing any more clear, Armstrong had dealt for and extended Faulk and extended Schenn, and then in mid-April with nothing known about whether '19-20 would be finished or what the cap would look like for '20-21, he extended Scandella who'd played a grand total of 11 games here.

Could Armstrong have known what Pietrangelo was asking for? Yeah, I'm sure at some point he knew. Did he know in the afterglow of the Cup win? I doubt it - but let's pretend he did. He could have at least said look, I'm willing to go to Z, but that's it - if you want to be here the rest of your career, that's as far as I'll go right now; anything else and you should plan on going somewhere else. There's no indication that they exchanged numbers until after the Blues got punted out of Edmonton; there's certainly no indication they swapped numbers during the regular season or even during the break.

A real cynic would argue that offering 8x8 was indeed posturing; it was putting out the look of yeah, I really do want him here but I'm not going to give 100% of the effort to make it happen - I'm only going to give 85% because I don't want him here. That would be arguing if Pietrangelo had asked for 5x8 or 6x7, Armstrong would have countered at 5x7 or 6x6 - whatever was kind of close, but not close enough to get Pietrangelo to sign and not with terms that Pietrangelo wanted. I'm a cynic, but I'm not that cynical.

But I do think - and I keep saying - that the Faulk moves were non-accidental. Armstrong did it with a future vision in mind. If he had wanted Pietrangelo to stick around, he would have locked him up first and early when it likely would have been easier to negotiate something cheaper. He didn't. There's a reason for it, and only Armstrong can explain that.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The difference between what we were reported to have offered Petro in AAV and what he accepted from Vegas was essentially the salary of one league minimum player. The argument that we couldn’t offer him that money holds no water. It’s not that we couldn’t, it’s that we wouldn’t.

It wasn't all about AAV, but AAV played a small part. It was much more about the full NMC and the signing bonuses. Those are things we wouldn't give him, which made any attempt to get a deal done futile.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

Faulk was hedge against Petro leaving, not impetus for it.

This. Agreed.

 

[The Note]

Most of my comments last page were simply pointing out the fuller context of Dom’s model. I didn’t even give my own opinion of the moves. The model gives justification for letting Pietro walk, somewhat surprisingly.

I’ll also point out that it’s possible for there to be a no-win scenario where Pietro falls off sharply AND the Blues don’t maintain contender status. In other words, maybe they decline and keeping Pietro wouldn’t change it.

I’m not really sure who the posters supposedly are who are in denial. I would rather have Pietro, but I realize you can’t write blank checks in a salary cap league. This idea that the Blues are chumps now seems excessively negative and does a disservice to the good players who are still here and who contributed to the Cup team.

As for my own opinion: I am trying to understand what goes into Armstrong’s decisions and try to present what I think that decision-making probably was. It’s not always obvious and we have to make some assumptions when we don’t get full disclosure of the negotiations. It doesn’t mean I mindlessly agree with Armstrong. But I think its important to engage with his arguments, if he were here to make them.

Going into the season, I’m more worried about the play in goal than I am about how this D corps shapes up. There are enough good players to do some cool stuff with the defense and create some matchup headaches for opponents. I think that will be fun to watch. But we’ll need solid goaltending and probably less rebound-prone style in order to be successful.

You seem to have inferred an awful lot from my post that simply wasn't there. Where did I ever imply anyone was in denial? I pretty much said exactly the opposite; that if someone has a different view on the outlook of the team, I don't think that means they're viewing things through rose colored glasses (which was in response to a post above mine). Admittedly I didn't piggyback off the Faulk/Pietrangelo discussion because over the course of this past season + offseason I feel I have made my feelings perfectly clear. I think the Faulk contract, even as an insurance policy, hedge, or whatever you want to call it, is horrid and has looked worse every day since. There was no need to sign him to that deal after also giving up assets to acquire him without ever having seen him play a game here. Additionally, thinking the team may take a step back or having real concerns about the roster doesn't mean you think the Blues are "chumps". There are very obviously still good players on the team. I haven't seen anyone penciling this group in as a top 3 pick. At even odds I would bet good money on the Blues making the playoffs.

My post was in reference to the general split in opinion that seems to be forming on the board and I think Dom's survey shows that to some degree. While I know it compared outside opinions to fans, I think it is reflective of what is going on here since Pietrangelo left. I also agree the issues/questions the Blues face go beyond just losing Pietrangelo and would exist even if Pietrangelo were still here.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

You seem to have inferred an awful lot from my post that simply wasn't there. Where did I ever imply anyone was in denial? I pretty much said exactly the opposite; that if someone has a different view on the outlook of the team, I don't think that means they're viewing things through rose colored glasses (which was in response to a post above mine). Admittedly I didn't piggyback off the Faulk/Pietrangelo discussion because over the course of this past season + offseason I feel I have made my feelings perfectly clear. I think the Faulk contract, even as an insurance policy, hedge, or whatever you want to call it, is horrid and has looked worse every day since. There was no need to sign him to that deal after also giving up assets to acquire him without ever having seen him play a game here. Additionally, thinking the team may take a step back or having real concerns about the roster doesn't mean you think the Blues are "chumps". There are very obviously still good players on the team. I haven't seen anyone penciling this group in as a top 3 pick. At even odds I would bet good money on the Blues making the playoffs.

My post was in reference to the general split in opinion that seems to be forming on the board and I think Dom's survey shows that to some degree. While I know it compared outside opinions to fans, I think it is reflective of what is going on here since Pietrangelo left. I also agree the issues/questions the Blues face go beyond just losing Pietrangelo and would exist even if Pietrangelo were still here.

I responded to you in the stream of the discussion, but some of those comments were referring to other posts in the stream, other posters. I think it’s pretty evident who is implying people are in denial and other condescending descriptions. Sorry if it looked like I was attributing the entire response to your single post. It was only meant as a touch point.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I still struggle with the report that when Pietrangelo wanted to talk contract, Armstrong punted citing future uncertainty (not knowing the cap in the future, not knowing if the CBA would be extended, etc.) - but within 3 months and with nothing any more clear, Armstrong had dealt for and extended Faulk and extended Schenn, and then in mid-April with nothing known about whether '19-20 would be finished or what the cap would look like for '20-21, he extended Scandella who'd played a grand total of 11 games here.

Could Armstrong have known what Pietrangelo was asking for? Yeah, I'm sure at some point he knew. Did he know in the afterglow of the Cup win? I doubt it - but let's pretend he did. He could have at least said look, I'm willing to go to Z, but that's it - if you want to be here the rest of your career, that's as far as I'll go right now; anything else and you should plan on going somewhere else. There's no indication that they exchanged numbers until after the Blues got punted out of Edmonton; there's certainly no indication they swapped numbers during the regular season or even during the break.

A real cynic would argue that offering 8x8 was indeed posturing; it was putting out the look of yeah, I really do want him here but I'm not going to give 100% of the effort to make it happen - I'm only going to give 85% because I don't want him here. That would be arguing if Pietrangelo had asked for 5x8 or 6x7, Armstrong would have countered at 5x7 or 6x6 - whatever was kind of close, but not close enough to get Pietrangelo to sign and not with terms that Pietrangelo wanted. I'm a cynic, but I'm not that cynical.

But I do think - and I keep saying - that the Faulk moves were non-accidental. Armstrong did it with a future vision in mind. If he had wanted Pietrangelo to stick around, he would have locked him up first and early when it likely would have been easier to negotiate something cheaper. He didn't. There's a reason for it, and only Armstrong can explain that.

I can’t figure out any rational explanation for why the front office would be running Pietro off like the cynical version you outline.

Maybe Armstrong anticipated the negotiations a bit from Pietro’s holdout last time, and I very much doubt they hadn’t exchanged SOME idea of what each side expected. I don’t think we confidently know what was exchanged when. Sitting down together can mean different things in the flow of the negotiation.

The best motive I can imagine to fit the cynical view is that the club simply believe, asked on their projections, that Pietro doesn’t have many good years left and don’t want to get handcuffed to an albatross contract.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I can’t figure out any rational explanation for why the front office would be running Pietro off like the cynical version you outline.

Let's clarify this: there's two versions of cynical:

1 - the really cynical version, which I don't even buy (but I'm sure someone already has)
2 - the version which I keep talking about: all the moves were at least non-accidental

Did negotiations from last time play a factor? Possibly. We don't know.. Again, I keep going back to the general acknowledgment that neither side had exchanged numbers in the offseason and that Armstrong didn't want to talk deal in even a very broad framework. The club can easily say look, we don't think he's going to be good for that many years - but if that's the case, why then go from offering 5x7 to offering 8x8? Going out to 8x8 if he already believes those last 2-3 years are likely to be terrible runs counter to the ongoing narrative that Armstrong makes business decisions, hockey decisions, he doesn't let emotion play into things.

But if he already anticipated issues with Pietrangelo's negotiations and had an idea what Pietrangelo was going to ask for and was unwilling to go there, then the trade-and-sign for Faulk was a clearly intentional move. It was the signal that "I'm not paying what Alex wants, I'll go find someone else to be his replacement on terms that I want" and so everything else that happened was performative theater to look like he wanted Pietrangelo back but was never going to go far enough to make it happen, knowing where the line had been drawn.

 

[67Blues]

Faulk isn't what is going to break this team. Petro leaving isn't going to break this team. The issue is that the offense of this team has a serious flaw the way it is put together in today's NHL. Our team's offense was built on having a great, smothering defense and better than average goaltending. The Blues won a whole lot of overtime games and one goal games last year. They didn't have that many blow out games, and if the defense had a bad game, you saw what that model looks like in the playoffs.

Speed is the new NHL game on offense. The Blues are about 3-5 years behind with their drafting and pipeline. Unless a few young forwards can step up or a few vets have career years, we could be in trouble, especially if the NHL season goes from a marathon to a 40 game sprint.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

It wasn't all about AAV, but AAV played a small part. It was much more about the full NMC and the signing bonuses. Those are things we wouldn't give him, which made any attempt to get a deal done futile.

I call BS on this. It's always about the money. Anything else is misdirection from Petro camp.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Let's clarify this: there's two versions of cynical:

1 - the really cynical version, which I don't even buy (but I'm sure someone already has)
2 - the version which I keep talking about: all the moves were at least non-accidental

Did negotiations from last time play a factor? Possibly. We don't know.. Again, I keep going back to the general acknowledgment that neither side had exchanged numbers in the offseason and that Armstrong didn't want to talk deal in even a very broad framework. The club can easily say look, we don't think he's going to be good for that many years - but if that's the case, why then go from offering 5x7 to offering 8x8? Going out to 8x8 if he already believes those last 2-3 years are likely to be terrible runs counter to the ongoing narrative that Armstrong makes business decisions, hockey decisions, he doesn't let emotion play into things.

But if he already anticipated issues with Pietrangelo's negotiations and had an idea what Pietrangelo was going to ask for and was unwilling to go there, then the trade-and-sign for Faulk was a clearly intentional move. It was the signal that "I'm not paying what Alex wants, I'll go find someone else to be his replacement on terms that I want" and so everything else that happened was performative theater to look like he wanted Pietrangelo back but was never going to go far enough to make it happen, knowing where the line had been drawn.

We don't know exactly what they discussed after winning Cup, but is reasonable to assume that even if they didn't "discuss numbers" it is likely that Petro camp indicated they wanted EK or DD money, or just below. This appears to be impetus for all that followed.