Around the NHL 2022-2023 *Mod warning in effect pg145

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Yeah my bad I didn't know that. I found a different list of good to elite D that have full or partial NMC. Josi, Jones, Hamilton, Reilly, Karlsson, etc... all have full NMC while on the other hand Hedman, Doughty, Carlson, Lindholm, Weegar have partial or no NMC at all. It's just the full NMC was a big deal to petro and we didn't want to offer one

He wanted more money. That is why we traded for Faulk. That is why they never negotiated the final terms. Listen to DA again. He is practically screaming "We didn't want to pay him upwards of $9mm!!!" but is too polite to call Petro a liar. I'm not. Petro is lying because he doesn't want to look greedy.

 

[PocketNines]

I wish the folks still crying over not signing AP would watch the following video from about 11:15-12:10 and from 15:10-16:40

When you hear Doug Armstrong say that NMCs give a player more power than the owner ... you fall for this?

A player having more power than an owner sounds like a nifty little phrase this man has cooked up in his head. He thinks, "people will fall for this, I'll say it."

 

[stl76]

When you hear Doug Armstrong say that NMCs give a player more power than the owner ... you fall for this?

A player having more power than an owner sounds like a nifty little phrase this man has cooked up in his head. He thinks, "people will fall for this, I'll say it."

Do you believe that Armstrong did not make an offer that included at least a partial NMC?

 

[PocketNines]

Do you believe that Armstrong did not make an offer that included at least a partial NMC?

I believe that him offering a two year partial one betrays the farce for what it was. Armstrong is in saying essentially that Pietrangelo wanted more power than Stillman like it's some unimaginable distortion of the correct power balance that would never be considered and then it's like "well you can be more powerful than Stillman for two years" – it gives away the game. If this were truly a bright red line, there would never have been compromise. Compromise shows that the position of "more powerful than the owner" is a talking point for simple consumption by uncritical thinkers.

And the part about well it's not even the NMC that he wanted, it was really the dollars, then takes 61.6M over 7 years instead of 64M over 8 years. So the dollars that don't match are that Petro thinks he will definitely get more than 2.4 in the 8th year. Armstrong wants you to believe that the negotiations failed because of the dollars that Petro greedily wanted in year 8. And also because he wanted to be more powerful than Tom Stillman.

 

[PocketNines]

the most boggling thing about it all is that Army was the architect of this better D, saw how good it was when it was on, and yet for some reason wasn't committed to keeping it intact to chase more Cups.

This blows my mind too. He had it! He made it! He saw it! Then he replaced his center beam with a fancy oil painting to bear the load.

He went into negotiations with Pietrangelo like he had actual leverage of "We have other options here."

 

[stl76]

I believe that him offering a two year partial one betrays the farce for what it was. Armstrong is in saying essentially that Pietrangelo wanted more power than Stillman like it's some unimaginable distortion of the correct power balance that would never be considered and then it's like "well you can be more powerful than Stillman for two years" – it gives away the game. If this were truly a bright red line, there would never have been compromise. Compromise shows that the position of "more powerful than the owner" is a talking point for simple consumption by uncritical thinkers.

And the part about well it's not even the NMC that he wanted, it was really the dollars, then takes 61.6M over 7 years instead of 64M over 8 years. So the dollars that don't match are that Petro thinks he will definitely get more than 2.4 in the 8th year. Armstrong wants you to believe that the negotiations failed because of the dollars that Petro greedily wanted in year 8. And also because he wanted to be more powerful than Tom Stillman.

Look, I hate re-hashing this crap. There’s no good guy/bad guy here.

I think both sides bent some (Pietrangelo on $$$ and Armstrong on structure) but unfortunately they weren’t able to come to an agreement. It sucks, but it is what it is. I just wish people would stop trying to make one side or the other out to be the villain.

You’ve made your stance on Armstrong’s views of a NMC very clear in many posts. I think it’s worth pointing out the Armstrong himself explained his actual stance, in his own words, and it doesn’t match what a lot of people around here seem to think it is.

 

[PocketNines]

Look, I hate re-hashing this crap. There’s no good guy/bad guy here.

I think both sides bent some (Pietrangelo on $$$ and Armstrong on structure) but unfortunately they weren’t able to come to an agreement. It sucks, but it is what it is. I just wish people would stop trying to make one side or the other out to be the villain.

You’ve made your stance on Armstrong’s views of a NMC very clear in many posts. I think it’s worth pointing out the Armstrong himself explained his actual stance, in his own words, and it doesn’t match what a lot of people around here seem to think it is.

Yes, you literally posted yesterday a clip of Armstrong being all Mr. Reasonable in his answer to gullible reporters saying that NMCs make the player more powerful than the owner. You stated that you wished more people would come to understand these two specific points that I characterized accurately in my previous reply.

Yesterday you wanted to make sure we understood something and I reply one time to you and it's all well we know what you think very clearly. Yet I literally did what you stated you wished people like me would do. I engaged with it and pointed out how silly it is for a person to uncritically believe Doug Armstrong saying an NMC makes a player more powerful than the owner when, as you yourself point out, he betrayed this bright line in offering two years of it.

You may hate re-hashing this crap but you re-hashed it. I agree that both sides bent some; it occurred in the context where Armstrong was bluffing and had no Plan B. So I can accept the part where two sides didn't come to an agreement and it happens, but I can't accept a hockey man misunderstanding the defense he built, as @BadgersandBlues pointed out. If the hockey man had correctly understood the hockey part then he would have had the business man compromise more, considering how deeply bunk the "more powerful than the owner" thing is. That is a naked play to get fan sympathy, so that people react with "Pietrangelo wanted more powerful than the owner? That's not the way of the world, doesn't he know that?"

 

[stl76]

Yes, you literally posted yesterday a clip of Armstrong being all Mr. Reasonable in his answer to gullible reporters saying that NMCs make the player more powerful than the owner. You stated that you wished more people would come to understand these two specific points that I characterized accurately in my previous reply.

Yesterday you wanted to make sure we understood something and I reply one time to you and it's all well we know what you think very clearly. Yet I literally did what you stated you wished people like me would do. I engaged with it and pointed out how silly it is for a person to uncritically believe Doug Armstrong saying an NMC makes a player more powerful than the owner when, as you yourself point out, he betrayed this bright line in offering two years of it.

You may hate re-hashing this crap but you re-hashed it. I agree that both sides bent some; it occurred in the context where Armstrong was bluffing and had no Plan B. So I can accept the part where two sides didn't come to an agreement and it happens, but I can't accept a hockey man misunderstanding the defense he built, as @BadgersandBlues pointed out. If the hockey man had correctly understood the hockey part then he would have had the business man compromise more, considering how deeply bunk the "more powerful than the owner" thing is. That is a naked play to get fan sympathy, so that people react with "Pietrangelo wanted more powerful than the owner? That's not the way of the world, doesn't he know that?"

Both sides spin. I don’t think anyone is uncritically believing anything Armstrong says…but I do think there are a lot of folks on this board who are not aware of what actually appears to have happened in the negotiations between AP and DA.

Disagree that DA was bluffing or had no plan B. You can think it was a shit plan, but it seems pretty clear to me that trading for Faulk a year before AP’s contract was up was the plan B. I think Armstrong probably reached out to Pietrangelo’s reps about an extension and they quoted him a price starting with 10+ mill AAV and so he put plan B into motion.

And it’s pretty clear Armstrong was not bluffing. It was either re-sign Pietrangelo and trade Parayko (plan A - run AP & Faulk) or let Pietrangelo walk and re-sign Parayko (plan B - run Colt & Faulk).

There’s plenty of blame to go around here. But it seems too often that folks want to focus on one side or the other. You’ve gone on quite a bit with your thoughts on Armstrong’s side. What do you make of Pietrangelo’s side?

 

[PJJJP]

Pavel Zacha just signed for 4 years at 4.75 mil. Barbashev has to be thinking of somewhere around that number.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, something 4.5-5M is a pretty safe bet for Barbie, and 4-6 years is a reasonable ask. If there is a bidding war, a team will win out by giving him a 5th or 6th year. I wouldn't mind having him back, but I really don't think we can have both him and Saad. That's a lot of money for middle 6 wingers that can play up and down the lineup and in a lot of different deployments, but don't do anything that well to be a driver on the line. Cash in on him at the deadline.

 

[Majorityof1]

I wish the folks still crying over not signing AP would watch the following video from about 11:15-12:10 and from 15:10-16:40

I'm not crying over it, but I still think Armstrong f***ed up huge with AP. I re-watched the video. I followed the story as closely as you did. I still think Armstrong f***ed up huge with AP. Armstrong contradicts himself. "Structure was not a problem" and "We only gave him a PARTIAL NMC and SOME bonus money." We know AP got a full NMC and over half the contract amount will come from signing bonuses. We did not offer him the first part at the least, and he was worth that. A partial NMC in the last 2 years of the deal is no protection as it just gives the organization incentive to ship them out before the clause starts.

I swear, I hope none of you who are swayed by this are bosses or parents.

"Johnny, I told you to study hard for that spelling test. Why did you get an F?"
"Dad, if an A and I was going to happen, then the lack of studying wouldn't have stopped it. I mean this test was special and I did break my usual rule against studying. I studied some, like at least 10 whole minutes. But ultimately that A just wanted to be on other kid's tests."
"Oh wow, Johnny. I didn't realize you broke your rule against studying by studying some. Aren't you the best little student ever. Let's get you ice cream."

He wanted more money. That is why we traded for Faulk. That is why they never negotiated the final terms. Listen to DA again. He is practically screaming "We didn't want to pay him upwards of $9mm!!!" but is too polite to call Petro a liar. I'm not. Petro is lying because he doesn't want to look greedy.

He didn't get over $9M. He got a full NMC. That is stronger evidence than anything anyone says. To whatever extent AP is a liar, Armstrong is too.

 

[TheOrganist]

Yeah, my takeaway was that we partially offered him everything structure wise, but only doing it partially isn't really doing it at all in a sense. One day, when Petro retires, maybe he'll share how close it really was, but until then who knows. My view of the Faulk trade was that while I was hopeful a deal would still get done, that trade marked something that everyone knew Petro didn't want to return.

I’m also looking forward to the actual truth coming out in 10 years. The dialogue that occurred between the Petro camp and the Blues during the off-season of the Cup year seems to be the key to the breakdown as I also view the Faulk trade similarly. You can’t tell me the Blues and Stillman didn’t want Petro to be a lifer after what just occurred in July out of that yr.

 

[Majorityof1]

There’s plenty of blame to go around here. But it seems too often that folks want to focus on one side or the other. You’ve gone on quite a bit with your thoughts on Armstrong’s side. What do you make of Pietrangelo’s side?

Pietrangelo got what he wanted. He has a full NMC and a lot of signing Bonus money and a good AAV. He is on a better team than we are. We suck now and a large part of it is because we lost AP. Faulk is an inadaquate replacement. So our side failed. Principles don't mean shit. I don't care who is right or who is wrong. The goals aren't to win a contract dispute. The player's goal is to get the best deal available for him and his family. Pietrangelo did that. The goal of the ownership is to put together the best team. Armstrong did not do that.

 

[TheOrganist]

Pietrangelo got what he wanted. He has a full NMC and a lot of signing Bonus money and a good AAV. He is on a better team than we are. We suck now and a large part of it is because we lost AP. Faulk is an inadaquate replacement. So our side failed. Principles don't mean shit. I don't care who is right or who is wrong. The goals aren't to win a contract dispute. The player's goal is to get the best deal available for him and his family. Pietrangelo did that. The goal of the ownership is to put together the best team. Armstrong did not do that.

I mean that is a very simplistic way of looking at what went down. In theory, this should have been one of the easier negotiations of the Armstrong/Stillman era. You give your star defenseman a max term deal at 9 million per. Petro bends a little on signing bonus knowing he’s playing for a small market without Steve Ballmer’s riches. Army bends on the NMC policy. Petro retires a rich man in a low cost, family friendly state with his STL born wife and four kids. Done. Finished.

We all wanted to murder the front office the day it went down but I really find it hard to believe that Armstrong insulted him to such a degree during the early negotiations that it completely changed Petro’s viewpoint of staying w the organization. He wanted to move on for reasons we won’t know until he retires.

 

[PocketNines]

Both sides spin. I don’t think anyone is uncritically believing anything Armstrong says…but I do think there are a lot of folks on this board who are not aware of what actually appears to have happened in the negotiations between AP and DA.

Disagree that DA was bluffing or had no plan B. You can think it was a shit plan, but it seems pretty clear to me that trading for Faulk a year before AP’s contract was up was the plan B. I think Armstrong probably reached out to Pietrangelo’s reps about an extension and they quoted him a price starting with 10+ mill AAV and so he put plan B into motion.

And it’s pretty clear Armstrong was not bluffing. It was either re-sign Pietrangelo and trade Parayko (plan A - run AP & Faulk) or let Pietrangelo walk and re-sign Parayko (plan B - run Colt & Faulk).

There’s plenty of blame to go around here. But it seems too often that folks want to focus on one side or the other. You’ve gone on quite a bit with your thoughts on Armstrong’s side. What do you make of Pietrangelo’s side?

Yes I do think it was a shit plan. What's my evidence? The state of the team today. So it remains relevant for this reason. You see it as something to be tired of; I see it as impossible to avoid. We will see the consequences of this decision for years.

Of Pietrangelo's side? As an employee I believe that my reward should be related to my results. If I underperform and waste company time and assets then not only shouldn't I get a raise I should probably be fired. If I adequately perform I should be adequately compensated. If I perform at a level few can match, I should be rewarded at a high level. The better I do, the more compensation and benefits I should be able to command as an employee. Due to the vicious nature of capitalism I would be within my right to match its ruthlessness and say I want every last drop I can squeeze out and there isn't a single moral iota wrong with that. But I am also within my rights to value benefits as equal to or greater than money when I consider this.

My take on Pietrangelo is that he did an honest self-assessment of his value in the NHL and said "I want to be highly paid, but most important is that guys in a room somewhere can't make a decision one day to send me and my family to City X. My family is young and triplets require enough attention that when they are under 10 I don't want to have to suddenly upend everything and move without being in control; I might want to move but it has to be mutual." He looked at his value and thought, I can get this in the NHL and lead a competitive team and he was obviously correct. He held the cards. He wasn't thinking "I want to be more powerful than Tom Stillman." What a risible argument by Armstrong, that is an insult to basic intelligence. I think Pietrangelo thought his position reasonable. I think his contract is reasonable and he isn't more powerful than the Vegas owner.

If Armstrong had caved on the NMC but not the bonus structure and Petro walked then I'd think ok he really didn't want to be here. But the guy was literally saying "I want to be locked into not leaving" and people are saying "he was dead set on leaving." What I take "he was dead set on leaving" to mean is that athletes should be institutionally loyal to these corporations owing to how fan loyalty works. We have ideas about what corporations are and ideas about the Blues that encompass so much more than our idea about corporations. So when the illusion is shattered and we have to remember it's on a basic level just a corporation too, people blame the player for seeming to remind us of this. They're very open to absurdities like "Hey I was just trying to be a hard working GM but this guy, he wants more power than the owner, can you believe that? That's crazy!"

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

He didn't get over $9M. He got a full NMC. That is stronger evidence than anything anyone says. To whatever extent AP is a liar, Armstrong is too.

he didn’t get it but that was the ask. He reportedly lowered his ask after josi signed because JoshI is better player and signed for less than Petro was demanding from blues. but in Covid summer nobody was paying Petro 9+ AAV.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Good lord I'm so tired if hearing about Pietro. He's gone, dude was on a private plane to Vegas before free agency even started. Should he have been offered a full NMC? most likely yeah, but hes also not been as good as he was here since hes been in Vegas either (even tho he has been better this year).

 

[Majorityof1]

I mean that is a very simplistic way of looking at what went down. In theory, this should have been one of the easier negotiations of the Armstrong/Stillman era. You give your star defenseman a max term deal at 9 million per. Petro bends a little on signing bonus knowing he’s playing for a small market without Steve Ballmer’s riches. Army bends on the NMC policy. Petro retires a rich man in a low cost, family friendly state with his STL born wife and four kids. Done. Finished.

We all wanted to murder the front office the day it went down but I really find it hard to believe that Armstrong insulted him to such a degree during the early negotiations that it completely changed Petro’s viewpoint of staying w the organization. He wanted to move on for reasons we won’t know until he retires.

This seems a much more simplistic take. You have Pietrangelo bending on signing bonus and NMC, and Army only bending a little bit on NMC. But you are blaming Pietrangelo.

As for insult, Armstrong had his replacement before either side says they started negotiating. Armstrong put off negotiations several times, There was no urgency from the Blues side to get a deal done. They traded and signed a player who plays his position to a max term deal before they started talking to him about an extention. Then they dealyed negotiations. Then they negotiated. They told him they'd come back around and he should see what else was out there. And then they signed someone else with the cap to sign him before coming back around. If anyone seems to have wanted to move on, it was the Blues.

 

[Majorityof1]

he didn’t get it but that was the ask. He reportedly lowered his ask after josi signed because JoshI is better player and signed for less than Petro was demanding from blues. but in Covid summer nobody was paying Petro 9+ AAV.

Then the Blues could have come back around and signed him. Instead they signed Krug with the cap money they needed to sign him before ever coming back around to check and see if his demands had changed. Josi signed over a year before Krug or Pietrangelo.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Then the Blues could have come back around and signed him. Instead they signed Krug with the cap money they needed to sign him before ever coming back around to check and see if his demands had changed. Josi signed over a year before Krug or Pietrangelo.

we signed Krug because Petro turned down our best offer and flew to Vegas. You can question a lot of moves that led to that point, but everyone knew he was gone when he got on that plane.

 

[TheOrganist]

This seems a much more simplistic take. You have Pietrangelo bending on signing bonus and NMC, and Army only bending a little bit on NMC. But you are blaming Pietrangelo.

As for insult, Armstrong had his replacement before either side says they started negotiating. Armstrong put off negotiations several times, There was no urgency from the Blues side to get a deal done. They traded and signed a player who plays his position to a max term deal before they started talking to him about an extention. Then they dealyed negotiations. Then they negotiated. They told him they'd come back around and he should see what else was out there. And then they signed someone else with the cap to sign him before coming back around. If anyone seems to have wanted to move on, it was the Blues.

This seems a much more simplistic take. You have Pietrangelo bending on signing bonus and NMC, and Army only bending a little bit on NMC. But you are blaming Pietrangelo.

As for insult, Armstrong had his replacement before either side says they started negotiating. Armstrong put off negotiations several times, There was no urgency from the Blues side to get a deal done. They traded and signed a player who plays his position to a max term deal before they started talking to him about an extention. Then they dealyed negotiations. Then they negotiated. They told him they'd come back around and he should see what else was out there. And then they signed someone else with the cap to sign him before coming back around. If anyone seems to have wanted to move on, it was the Blues.

You sound like you were in the room when every critical conversation went down from July, 2019 - September, 2020. What you just presented is basically random speculation. You think Armstrong/Stillman were this flippant? Please.

 

[PJJJP]

It's going to be great in here when either the blues win a cup without pietrangelo and he never wins one with Vegas or the opposite happens. One side is going to be like "see we never needed him" and the other side will be like "See pietrangelo won a cup without us and we were stupid to move on".

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

This seems a much more simplistic take. You have Pietrangelo bending on signing bonus and NMC, and Army only bending a little bit on NMC. But you are blaming Pietrangelo.

As for insult, Armstrong had his replacement before either side says they started negotiating. Armstrong put off negotiations several times, There was no urgency from the Blues side to get a deal done. They traded and signed a player who plays his position to a max term deal before they started talking to him about an extention. Then they dealyed negotiations. Then they negotiated. They told him they'd come back around and he should see what else was out there. And then they signed someone else with the cap to sign him before coming back around. If anyone seems to have wanted to move on, it was the Blues.

He didn’t put off negotiations. they talked and army realized they weren’t on same chapter, let alone same page. Army dealt for replacement because he knew he wasn’t paying Petro 10mm or whatever his ask was. army wanted Petro to be like Bergeron and take less so that team could keep more guys. That isn’t Petro. So army saw they were maybe 2mm per year apart and he deals for Faulk. Again, you can question wisdom of this, but that is what happened. All of this has been reported.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's going to be great in here when either the blues win a cup without pietrangelo and he never wins one with Vegas or the opposite happens. One side is going to be like "see we never needed him" and the other side will be like "See pietrangelo won a cup without us and we were stupid to move on".

I'll go the big brain approach and say we had to let him go, to be able to suck enough, to then get Bedard, to bring us to a dynasty.

 

[Majorityof1]

He didn’t put off negotiations. they talked and army realized they weren’t on same chapter, let alone same page. Army dealt for replacement because he knew he wasn’t paying Petro 10mm or whatever his ask was. army wanted Petro to be like Bergeron and take less so that team could keep more guys. That isn’t Petro. So army saw they were maybe 2mm per year apart and he deals for Faulk. Again, you can question wisdom of this, but that is what happened. All of this has been reported.

IIRC, both sides said they didn't start negotiations in earnest until after the 2019-20 season. They were able to start negotiations in the summer of 2019. they didn't. They negotiated a little bit in the middle of the season but it didn't go anywhere. Look at the opposite. We really wanted a Kyrou and Thomas deal done. It got done the summer before the last year on their contract. As I remember it, from the reports I heard form supposedly neutral sources, it was usually the Blues who wanted to wait. And maybe it was because Petro wanted way too much. But that is why you negotiate, not why you cut off talks.

What you are saying is pretty much in line what I am saying. Armstrong decided early that he didn't want to pay Petro what he was asking up front a year before his contract was up. So they never really started talking beyond an initial conversation. Circumstances changed with depressed cap and Josi signing changing the market. But Armstrong already had a plan in place to move on. He tried to get something done that would be a super team friendly deal. It didn't work and so he went with plan B again and gave the money he held for a team friendly deal to Krug. Which in my view, and the reality of our D should prove me out, was a series of huge f*** ups by Armstrong.

I think part of the disconnect is the way I view negotiations. First, I don't care if Pietrangelo really did want to leave. It is Armstrong's job as GM of the Blues to sell the Blues to his players and other potential players. It is the GM's failure if his captain wants to go to a different team with all contracts being equal. I don't care why. You didn't do enough to make him happy when he was here. The fact that Pietrangelo and Tarasenko, two very important players wanted out is a very, very bad look. Again, I don't care about the reasons. Maybe the doctors didn't mess up Tarasenko's surgeries. He felt like they did and he felt like you didn't care. One of your star players legitimately felt you didn't care about his health. How can you fail to that level regardless of whether you were in the right or wrong about the treatment he received? I don't know what the falling was with Petro, but it is on the GM to make sure his captain, #1 D and franchise best player is happy. Imagine a business owner who constantly yells at his employees, takes all the credit for their work, has draconian rules for days offand breaks, and creates a generally hostile work environement. Is it out of his hands when employees go somewhere else for less pay? I am sure the Blues weren't that bad, but it still falls to a manager to create an environment where the employees want to be there rather than another job.

Second, for a GM, there are two way to lose. If you sign a bad deal, you lose. And if you fail to get a deal done without an adaquate alternative, you lose. Most people seem to think walking away from a bad deal is a win. And it can be, unless your strategy for replacing that potential deal is a worse deal, ie Faulk+ Krug. Giving Petro $10M and signing a $3M D is sooo much better than signing Krug and Faulk to $13M. So Armstrong lost because he couldn't get Pietrangelo to sign. I don't care if Petro never wanted to re-sign here. Something about the way the organization is run made him not want to re-sign and that is on the GM as well. He compounded that by spending a lot more money on a guy who is actively hurting us and another who isn't good enough for the role we needed to fill.

TLDR: Negotiations didn't begin in earnest until after Petro's last season. There did not seem to be urgency from the Blues. Also, it would be on the GM if the captain wants to leave the organization, so that is not an excuse for Army failing to get a deal done. Finally, it is not an excuse to walk away from a bad deal if you walk into a worse one. Faulk+ Krug is a way worse deal than Pietrangelo at $10M and a $3M partner.