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

[Brian39]

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've watched it plenty.

That is our GM confirming that we did not offer a full NMC. We offered him a partial NMC for some of the years of his contract. He did not clarify exactly how strong that partial NMC would have been or how many years it was offered. It could have been a 2 year NMC with a modified NTC that made Petro list 3 teams that he can't be traded to. It could have been a 7 year NMC with 1 season that forced Petro to list 3 teams that he can be traded to. And it could have been anywhere in between. We will likely never know exactly how strong the partial NMC would have been or for how many years it would have been in effect. But we know one thing that is unambiguously true:

It was not in line with what Petro was reportedly asking for nor what he was actually given by Vegas.

Army stated that 'structure wouldn't be the sticking point' and that 'we use all the tools available in the CBA.' He then confirmed that the organization did not use every structural tool available to try and sign Petro for whatever dollar value they offered. The player wanted contractual assurance that he would be on the NHL roster unless he approved any move. The CBA allows a team to offer that to a player. The GM articulated why he is philosophically opposed to doing that and confirmed that he did not make an offer that would give the player that contractual assurance.

It was a line in the sand he refused to cross. Full stop.

It had been reported for months by every hockey insider that he was seeking a NMC and that was not an unprecedented ask for a player of Petro's caliber. Josi had gotten one from the Preds in the fall of 2019. Erik Karlsson had gotten one from the Sharks in the summer of 2019. Ekman-Larsson got one from the Coyotes in the summer of 2018. All of them were full NMCs for every year of the contract. Doughty didn't get one, but he also smashed the real-dollar record in the post-contract-term-limit era (His $11M AAV was $2M a year more than any other D man had ever gotten in the cap era). Petro got one from Vegas.

A partial NMC for some of the years isn't the same as a full NMC for the duration of the contract. That's not an opinion statement. Army wasn't willing to offer the roster security that Vegas did. Many people (I'm one of them) spent the entire 2019/20 season arguing that he should offer that. He didn't.

 

[stl76]

You state repeatedly that this NMC is of negligible actual value. You don't value it; you can't grapple with Pietrangelo valuing it. Your mind doesn't say to itself, "What am I missing about the value of NMCs? My 'just ego' explanation sounds so simplistic, and yet maybe there's something about the relationship between employers and employees in capitalism that covers more than 'just ego.'"

It's because you aren't asking yourself these basic questions that I don't respect your argument.

Yet your argument is somehow even shallower because if what you say is true, then WOW did the Blues screw up by letting something so "far fetched" and a "profoundly remote possibility" be the hangup here. Your argument collapses on itself. I don't tend to respect those.

Edit – what adds an extra layer of incoherent WTF to your argument is that you yourself were the one who wanted me and people like me to focus specifically on an interview segment where Armstrong claims the NMC would have made Pietrangelo "more powerful than the owner."

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. What exactly do you think my argument is? Cause I have a feeling there is a disconnect happening here.

 

[PocketNines]

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. What exactly do you think my argument is? Cause I have a feeling there is a disconnect happening here.

You stated that you really wished the people who hold the Pietrangelo opinion (did you do it with a bad tone as in 'still crying over?' I forget, wouldn't want to put words in your mouth and I know you don't do condescending tone, I hear?) would watch a specific segment of an Armstrong interview where he stated that Pietrangelo's ask of the NMC would make him "more powerful than the owner."

Do you dispute any part of that?

Within the last hour did you write that Pietrangelo ever being moved was a "profoundly remote possibility?"

So you want me to understand that the NMC was a no go because it would make Pietrangelo more powerful than the owner and also that it's "pretty naive" to believe that Pietrangelo would have simply valued the NMC which has only a fractionally remote chance of ever being relevant.

I have to ask, when you wrote the thing about people crying over Pietrangelo and wanting them to focus on this very specific piece of argument, were you aware that people would focus on the specific piece of argument and then compare it with the rest of what you are saying?

 

[Brian39]

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.

Plenty of people can look at a failed negotiation without labeling the sides as villains or heroes. I like Army a lot. I've defended Army a lot. I have never once called for him to be fired. I have openly argued that he should still have his job and he is the guy I still want running this organization. He is far from a villain.

This is a business. If letting a player walk or refusing to cave on a player's demands is in the organization's best interest, then the GM should let him walk. And if a team doesn't value a player as highly as another organization does, that player should leave. There is no good and bad with that.

My issue from well before the summer of 2020 is that refusing to offer a full NMC was a bad business decision. Losing a player of Petro's caliber and what he could have done for the team in 2020 through whenever he declines was significantly more harmful to the franchise than the the loss of team control in a full NMC vs whatever terms they offered. That was unambiguously a sticking point in negotiations and it shouldn't have been.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Petro wouldn't have signed on the dotted line if we offered him the same contract he got from Vegas. And there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't have signed with us if we had offered him an identical contract for the first 7 years and then an 8th year at $6M and a full NMC.

Petro now plays for a different team. His contract for that team has aged well so far and I'd be happy to have him playing for this team on an identical contract. It has been confirmed that we wouldn't offer as favorable of a contract structure. That is a negotiation failure and it is completely reasonable to criticize it as such without picking villains and heroes.

Adding Faulk as insurance because Army (correctly) anticipated that neither side would cross that line in the sand was a decent contingency plan, but it doesn't mean we can't disagree about drawing that line in the first place. I look at what our D could have been by simply extending our players for market value and I think it is better than the D Army built because he was unwilling to cross the line in the sand he drew. I don't have to think he is a villain for pointing that out.

 

[Brian39]

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.

They may have wanted it, but they weren't willing to put it into writing. A full NMC through each year of the contract is exactly how you put it into writing. Their best offer was a contract that told the player 'we love you but aren't willing to guarantee that you retire here if you want to.'

A full NMC on a max term deal is exactly how you contractually say 'we want you to be a Blues lifer.'

 

[TheOrganist]

They may have wanted it, but they weren't willing to put it into writing. A full NMC through each year of the contract is exactly how you put it into writing. Their best offer was a contract that told the player 'we love you but aren't willing to guarantee that you retire here if you want to.'

A full NMC on a max term deal is exactly how you contractually say 'we want you to be a Blues lifer.'

Agree with that. But there is a lot of anecdotal evidence and a lot of tangible evidence (Faulk trade) that the guy just didn’t want to retire a Blue. That Backes quote about his best friends intentions being an anecdotal example. It just seems like one of those contracts that would have been done if the player wanted to be here. In my opinion anyway.

 

[Brian39]

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.

Strickland reported that Petro's camp was asking for a deal 'as high as $9.25M a year.'

JR's reporting was that one of our offers was $7.7M AAV and there was also an $8M AAV offer. To my knowledge, he never reported the dollars Petro was looking for.

I don't recall any insider every talking about a $10M a year ask and I listened to all of Lebrun, Marek, Friedman and the Bobfather report that Petro's camp was looking for a deal similar to the $9.059M AAV Josi got. It is just wholly untrue to say that your recollection of events is what happened and was widely reported. The reported finances weren't even close to the numbers you are citing and the insiders that talked about the negotiation breakdown repeatedly cited the NMC issue and (Friedman especially) discussed that negotiations were getting emotionally charged.

 

[PocketNines]

The Faulk trade is not "tangible evidence" of Pietrangelo's wishes. It is tangible evidence of Armstrong's wishes.

 

[stl76]

You stated that you really wished the people who hold the Pietrangelo opinion (did you do it with a bad tone as in 'still crying over?' I forget, wouldn't want to put words in your mouth and I know you don't do condescending tone, I hear?) would watch a specific segment of an Armstrong interview where he stated that Pietrangelo's ask of the NMC would make him "more powerful than the owner."

Do you dispute any part of that?

Within the last hour did you write that Pietrangelo ever being moved was a "profoundly remote possibility?"

So you want me to understand that the NMC was a no go because it would make Pietrangelo more powerful than the owner and also that it's "pretty naive" to believe that Pietrangelo would have simply valued the NMC which has only a fractionally remote chance of ever being relevant.

I have to ask, when you wrote the thing about people crying over Pietrangelo and wanting them to focus on this very specific piece of argument, were you aware that people would focus on the specific piece of argument and then compare it with the rest of what you are saying?

What exactly do you think my argument is? If you want to engage in a real discussion, why not answer the simple straightforward question in a concise manner? I am not a lawyer. Frankly, I don’t have the time, training, or interest in going back and forth and back and forth talking past one another.

It seems like you are conflating Armstrong’s words with me making an argument…but I’m not sure and don’t want to make assumptions about your mind state when I could simply ask you.

When I wrote the original post, I assumed that there were a lot of people who were unaware that Armstrong was willing to bend some in contract structure. An assumption proven correct by subsequent posts.

 

[PocketNines]

What exactly do you think my argument is? If you want to engage in a real discussion, why not answer the simple straightforward question in a concise manner? I am not a lawyer. Frankly, I don’t have the time, training, or interest in going back and forth and back and forth talking past one another.

It seems like you are conflating Armstrong’s words with me making an argument…but I’m not sure and don’t want to make assumptions about your mind state when I could simply ask you.

When I wrote the original post, I assumed that there were a lot of people who were unaware that Armstrong was willing to bend some in contract structure. An assumption proven correct by subsequent posts.

You, poster stl76, stated, "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"

You wrote that. That was you. Sorry to get all lawyer on you. You recall you posted this, yes?

In that video from 15:10-16:40 Armstrong states that giving Pietrangelo an NMC would have made him more powerful than the owner.

Then in post 746 today you argued that the NMC ever being needed was a "profoundly remote possibility," which followed on post 742 where you argued that Pietrangelo was getting everything he really wanted so it must have authentically been just about ego. Again, I called out your lack of critical thinking ability to consider any other possibility of why a player would actually value an NMC. I also endorse Brian's explanation on this point to you, which you now have heard, so I incorporate his argument by reference, as a lawyer would do.

But, keep playing this game where now we have to pretend I'm just misunderstanding you. Make an argument, don't make an argument ... doesn't matter, but if you're going to make one then please own the things you say.

 

[Brian39]

Can you think of a single time an elite #1 dman in his prime was waived for the AHL or exposed in an expansion draft? Seems pretty far fetched to me to say this profoundly remote possibility was the only sticking point for AP. I get what you’re saying, but I’m incredulous that there wasn’t more going on here.

Mark Giordano won the Norris trophy in year 3 of a 6 year deal and was squarely Calgary's #1 D man for about a decade. He didn't have a NMC and was exposed in the Kraken expansion draft two years later. Seattle selected him, named him their captain and then traded him to Toronto at the deadline. After 15 years in Calgary, he moved twice in a year because he didn't have a NMC.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson would have been exposed in the Kraken expansion draft if he didn't have a NMC. The Coyotes were openly trying to get rid of that contract and did in fact trade him to Vancouver just 2 days after the expansion draft. Having a NMC allowed him to have a say in where he ended up after things fell apart in Arizona. He preferred Vancouver to Seattle and utilized his bargained-for NMC to control his future.

Niklas Kronwell was Detroit's #1 D for about half a decade and got Norris votes 3 times. His final season playing #1 minutes for them was 2015/16. He was exposed as a 36 year old in the Vegas expansion draft because he didn't have a NMC.

Shea Weber was traded at 31 years old entering year 5 of a 14 year deal because he didn't have trade protection. In the previous season he played 25 minutes a night, won the Messier Leadership award and had his 8th consecutive season finishing top 10 in Norris voting. He was exposed in the Kraken expansion draft a few months after leading the Habs to the Cup Final because it was revealed that his body had essentially broken down.

The other side of that Weber trade was P.K. Subban. Subban was about to enter year 3 of his 8 year deal, which was the first season he was eligible for trade protection. He had a NMC that would have gone into effect 2 days after the trade. Nashville chose not to honor the NMC so Subban lost all trade protection for the next 6 years in that trade.

Ryan McDonagh averaged 23:10 a night in the playoffs through the Lightning's 3 straight trips to the Final. He has a full NTC for the first 6 years of his 7 year contract. He was set to enter year 4 of that deal this summer. The Lightning came to him this summer, informed him that he was being moved for cap purposes, and asked him to provide a list of teams he'd prefer to go to. They were able to do that (and he didn't have the ability to tell them to pound sand) because if he refused to give a list of teams they were going to waive him. The Bolts received no real value in return. They got back a cap dump who has spent more tim ein the AHL than the NHL and a 23 year old who they assigned to the ECHL. Having a full NTC instead of a NMC allowed the team to force him out of the organization and the only thing they got in return was cap space.

The NHL is a multi-billion dollar industry. If a team can benefit from moving a player, they are going to do it. Wayne Gretzky was traded as a 28 year old. If a team can use the threat of waivers to force a guy to accept a trade, they are going to do it if it makes their team better. If they can rely on a very limited trade list to find a taker, they will if it makes their team better. An 8 year deal for Petro was going to cover his age 31-38 seasons. He wasn't worried about winning the Norris and then being waived. He was worried about the team using whatever contractual ability available to move him at the very first sign of regression. No one on planet Earth is capable of pinpointing when that will come with complete certainty, so the mechanism to prevent it is a full NMC for the duration of the contract.

 

[PocketNines]

Mark Giordano won the Norris trophy in year 3 of a 6 year deal and was squarely Calgary's #1 D man for about a decade. He didn't have a NMC and was exposed in the Kraken expansion draft two years later. Seattle selected him, named him their captain and then traded him to Toronto at the deadline. After 15 years in Calgary, he moved twice in a year because he didn't have a NMC.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson would have been exposed in the Kraken expansion draft if he didn't have a NMC. The Coyotes were openly trying to get rid of that contract and did in fact trade him to Vancouver just 2 days after the expansion draft. Having a NMC allowed him to have a say in where he ended up after things fell apart in Arizona. He preferred Vancouver to Seattle and utilized his bargained-for NMC to control his future.

Shea Weber was traded at 31 years old entering year 5 of a 14 year deal because he didn't have trade protection. In the previous season, he played 25 minutes a night, won the Messier Leadership award and had his 8th consecutive season finishing top 10 in Norris voting. He was exposed in the Kraken expansion draft a few months after leading the Habs to the Cup Final because it was revealed that his body had essentially broken down.

The other side of that Weber trade was P.K. Subban. Subban was about to enter year 3 of his 8 year deal, which was the first season he was eligible for trade protection. He had a NMC that would have gone into effect 2 days after the trade. Nashville chose not to honor the NMC so Subban lost all trade protection for the next 6 years in that trade.

Ryan McDonagh averaged 23:10 a night in the playoffs through the Lightning's 3 straight trips to the Final. He has a full NTC for the first 6 years of his 7 year contract. He was set to enter year 4 of that deal this summer. The Lightning came to him this summer, informed him that he was being moved for cap purposes, and asked him to provide a list of teams he'd prefer to go to. They were able to do that (and he didn't have the ability to tell them to pound sand) because had he refused they were going to waive him. Having a full NTC instead of a NMC allowed the team to force him out of the organization.

The NHL is a multi-billion dollar industry. If a team can benefit from moving a player, they are going to do it. Wayne Gretzky was traded as a 28 year old. If a team can use the threat of waivers to force a guy to accept a trade, they are going to do it if it makes their team better. An 8 year deal for Petro was going to cover his age 31-38 seasons. He wasn't worried about winning the Norris and then being waived. He was worried about the team using whatever contractual ability available to move him at the very first sign of regression. No one on planet Earth is capable of pinpointing when that will come with complete certainty, so the mechanism to prevent it is a full NMC for the duration of the contract.

Up against this well-stated history, we have a comparatively poor argument about how the likelihood of an NMC being needed for protection is so faint that it had to be just ego. I'm also incorporating this post by reference.

 

[Xerloris]

That is our GM confirming that we did not offer a full NMC. We offered him a partial NMC for some of the years of his contract. He did not clarify exactly how strong that partial NMC would have been or how many years it was offered. It could have been a 2 year NMC with a modified NTC that made Petro list 3 teams that he can't be traded to. It could have been a 7 year NMC with 1 season that forced Petro to list 3 teams that he can be traded to. And it could have been anywhere in between. We will likely never know exactly how strong the partial NMC would have been or for how many years it would have been in effect. But we know one thing that is unambiguously true:

You're making what if's that are ridiculous. What if the NMC included a NTC where he could be traded?? Dude, then it's NOT a NMC is it? a NMC is a NMC and anything else is not a NMC.

Strickland reported that Petro's camp was asking for a deal 'as high as $9.25M a year.'

JR's reporting was that one of our offers was $7.7M AAV and there was also an $8M AAV offer. To my knowledge, he never reported the dollars Petro was looking for.

I don't recall any insider every talking about a $10M a year ask and I listened to all of Lebrun, Marek, Friedman and the Bobfather report that Petro's camp was looking for a deal similar to the $9.059M AAV Josi got. It is just wholly untrue to say that your recollection of events is what happened and was widely reported. The reported finances weren't even close to the numbers you are citing and the insiders that talked about the negotiation breakdown repeatedly cited the NMC issue and (Friedman especially) discussed that negotiations were getting emotionally charged.

I remember hearing somewhere in the summer after we won the cup that Pietrangelo was looking for 10m/yr so any reporting during the time where he actually left for Vegas was not about the 10m demand. It would have been closer to the cup time frame.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

You're making what if's that are ridiculous. What if the NMC included a NTC where he could be traded?? Dude, then it's NOT a NMC is it? a NMC is a NMC and anything else is not a NMC.


I remember hearing somewhere in the summer after we won the cup that Pietrangelo was looking for 10m/yr so any reporting during the time where he actually left for Vegas was not about the 10m demand. It would have been closer to the cup time frame.

And that is why we dealt for Faulk

 

[Brian39]

You're making what if's that are ridiculous. What if the NMC included a NTC where he could be traded?? Dude, then it's NOT a NMC is it? a NMC is a NMC and anything else is not a NMC.

Incorrect.

You can grant a NMC that carves out a limited NTC. Erik Johnson has one. He can't be waived or exposed in an expansion draft without his consent, but he is forced to provide a 19 team trade list to the team.

What do you think the word 'partial' means? Army describes the offered NMC clause as 'partial' before going on to say that it wasn't offered in every year of the deal. There is absolutely no reason to describe it that way unless it was something less than a full NMC in the years it was offered. That's inherent to the use of the word 'partial.'

The CBA does not state that a NMC can't have exceptions. The CBA defines a no-move clause as follows (italics are mine): "A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim." Not must. May. That means that a NMC absolutely can prohibit the team from loaning or waiving a player, but still force the player to provide a list of teams that he can be traded to. A great term to describe such a customized NMC would be a partial NMC.

This isn't some 'what if they offered him less than a full NMC' hypothetical. That is what the GM said they did. None of us know how much flexibility the partial NMC gave the team compared to a full one. But we know that the GM is on record saying he wasn't offered a full one and was instead offered a partial one.

 

[Xerloris]

Incorrect.

You can grant a NMC that carves out a limited NTC. Erik Johnson has one. He can't be waived or exposed in an expansion draft without his consent, but he is forced to provide a 19 team trade list to the team.

What do you think the word 'partial' means? Army describes the offered NMC clause as both 'partial' before going on to say that it wasn't offered in every year of the deal. There is absolutely no reason to describe it that way unless it was something less than a full NMC in the years it was offered. That's inherent to the use of the word 'partial.'

The CBA does not state that a NMC can't have exceptions. The CBA defines a no-move clause as follows (italics are mine): "A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim." Not must. May. That means that a NMC absolutely can prohibit the team from loaning or waiving a player, but still force the player to provide a list of teams that he can be traded to. A great term to describe such a customized NMC would be a partial NMC.

I expected the word partial to mean not for the entirety of the contract.

 

[stl76]

You, poster stl76, stated, "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"

You wrote that. That was you. Sorry to get all lawyer on you. You recall you posted this, yes?

In that video from 15:10-16:40 Armstrong states that giving Pietrangelo an NMC would have made him more powerful than the owner.

Then in post 746 today you argued that the NMC ever being needed was a "profoundly remote possibility," which followed on post 742 where you argued that Pietrangelo was getting everything he really wanted so it must have authentically been just about ego. Again, I called out your lack of critical thinking ability to consider any other possibility of why a player would actually value an NMC. I also endorse Brian's explanation on this point to you, which you now have heard, so I incorporate his argument by reference, as a lawyer would do.

But, keep playing this game where now we have to pretend I'm just misunderstanding you. Make an argument, don't make an argument ... doesn't matter, but if you're going to make one then please own the things you say.

Again with the condescension? What game? The only reason I asked for clarity on this is because you repeatedly brought up "my argument" and it was unclear to me what you were referring to. Why assume the worst about people you interact with online?

I think it's strange that you seem unwilling to clearly and concisely state what your issue is here. It reads to me like your whole issue is that Armstrong's words about the power of a NMC in the clip I posted contradict my thought that a contract with partial NMC + full NTC could cover almost all of the risk of AP having to up root his family. If that's a mischaracterization of your point, then my apologies and please correct. Happy to read any response you feel like offering.

Accusing me of playing games and not owning the things I say because I asked for clarity on your thoughts is frankly insulting.

Mark Giordano won the Norris trophy in year 3 of a 6 year deal and was squarely Calgary's #1 D man for about a decade. He didn't have a NMC and was exposed in the Kraken expansion draft two years later. Seattle selected him, named him their captain and then traded him to Toronto at the deadline. After 15 years in Calgary, he moved twice in a year because he didn't have a NMC.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson would have been exposed in the Kraken expansion draft if he didn't have a NMC. The Coyotes were openly trying to get rid of that contract and did in fact trade him to Vancouver just 2 days after the expansion draft. Having a NMC allowed him to have a say in where he ended up after things fell apart in Arizona. He preferred Vancouver to Seattle and utilized his bargained-for NMC to control his future.

Niklas Kronwell was Detroit's #1 D for about half a decade and got Norris votes 3 times. His final season playing #1 minutes for them was 2015/16. He was exposed as a 36 year old in the Vegas expansion draft because he didn't have a NMC.

Shea Weber was traded at 31 years old entering year 5 of a 14 year deal because he didn't have trade protection. In the previous season he played 25 minutes a night, won the Messier Leadership award and had his 8th consecutive season finishing top 10 in Norris voting. He was exposed in the Kraken expansion draft a few months after leading the Habs to the Cup Final because it was revealed that his body had essentially broken down.

The other side of that Weber trade was P.K. Subban. Subban was about to enter year 3 of his 8 year deal, which was the first season he was eligible for trade protection. He had a NMC that would have gone into effect 2 days after the trade. Nashville chose not to honor the NMC so Subban lost all trade protection for the next 6 years in that trade.

Ryan McDonagh averaged 23:10 a night in the playoffs through the Lightning's 3 straight trips to the Final. He has a full NTC for the first 6 years of his 7 year contract. He was set to enter year 4 of that deal this summer. The Lightning came to him this summer, informed him that he was being moved for cap purposes, and asked him to provide a list of teams he'd prefer to go to. They were able to do that (and he didn't have the ability to tell them to pound sand) because if he refused to give a list of teams they were going to waive him. The Bolts received no real value in return. They got back a cap dump who has spent more tim ein the AHL than the NHL and a 23 year old who they assigned to the ECHL. Having a full NTC instead of a NMC allowed the team to force him out of the organization and the only thing they got in return was cap space.

The NHL is a multi-billion dollar industry. If a team can benefit from moving a player, they are going to do it. Wayne Gretzky was traded as a 28 year old. If a team can use the threat of waivers to force a guy to accept a trade, they are going to do it if it makes their team better. If they can rely on a very limited trade list to find a taker, they will if it makes their team better. An 8 year deal for Petro was going to cover his age 31-38 seasons. He wasn't worried about winning the Norris and then being waived. He was worried about the team using whatever contractual ability available to move him at the very first sign of regression. No one on planet Earth is capable of pinpointing when that will come with complete certainty, so the mechanism to prevent it is a full NMC for the duration of the contract.

That is way more examples than I thought there would be, clearly I was wrong about the rarity of the event.

I would quibble a bit with comparing some of these guys at the time to Pietrangelo during the time frame leading up to the Seattle draft tho. McDonaugh was several years older, with a lot of wear & tear, and has never been level of defenseman Pietrangelo was. Same for Kronwall but moreso. Same for Giordano on age + miles. The Subban + Weber trade was an interesting and unique case given the nature of the trade (#1 for #1), Weber's cap circumventing contract, and Subban's contract situation (mega contract coming off a Norris win w/ a ton of signing bonuses after an arbitration hearing).

For the examples you've outlined, do you think a partial NMC + full NTC could have changed the outcomes for the players you listed? Happy to read your response if you'd like to offer one. If not, no worries. Either way, I'm not going to respond tho... already spent way too much time derailing this thread as is.

 

[PocketNines]

Again with the condescension? What game? The only reason I asked for clarity on this is because you repeatedly brought up "my argument" and it was unclear to me what you were referring to. Why assume the worst about people you interact with online?

I think it's strange that you seem unwilling to clearly and concisely state what your issue is here. It reads to me like your whole issue is that Armstrong's words about the power of a NMC in the clip I posted contradict my thought that a contract with partial NMC + full NTC could cover almost all of the risk of AP having to up root his family. If that's a mischaracterization of your point, then my apologies and please correct. Happy to read any response you feel like offering.

Accusing me of playing games and not owning the things I say because I asked for clarity on your thoughts is frankly insulting.

As you stated in post 706 in a condescending way (weird since you hate that so much!), my position on the issue is utterly clear to you.

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.

Now I "seem unwilling to clearly and concisely state what my issue is here," eh? Really interesting new direction to this game, what's next?

 

[Brockon]

Jesus f***ing H Christ!

I'm sick to death of the non-stop back and forth over Pietrangelo, he's been gone for over 2 years and still dominates the forum threads for pages at a time.

I took a one year hiatus from HFBlues because I was done with the constant back and forth. Came back and everything seemed to have finally moved on, but here we are again... There's no proof, just shades of grey being thrown around as evidence that doesn't actually clear anything up.

Kids, just let it go. There's no need keep bringing this up. If this shit keeps up, I've half a mind to petition the admins to issue short term bans over flogging this particular dead horse.

 

[PJJJP]

Vince Dunn looks good for the Kraken. The whole Kraken team impresses me with how they play the game and the structure they have. I wouldn't say their team is better than our team, when it is healthy, on paper but it works much better. They play as a 5 man unit, unlike our disjointed group which seems to be doing 10 different things at once

 

[PocketNines]

Jesus f***ing H Christ!

I'm sick to death of the non-stop back and forth over Pietrangelo, he's been gone for over 2 years and still dominates the forum threads for pages at a time.

I took a one year hiatus from HFBlues because I was done with the constant back and forth. Came back and everything seemed to have finally moved on, but here we are again... There's no proof, just shades of grey being thrown around as evidence that doesn't actually clear anything up.

Kids, just let it go. There's no need keep bringing this up. If this shit keeps up, I've half a mind to petition the admins to issue short term bans over flogging this particular dead horse.

So you acknowledge it hasn't been discussed intently for awhile but you will absolutely not allow it because you get to make that decision for everyone and you will have people banned if they discuss it?

The first post at the top of the previous page explains why it can and will be discussed when it organically crops up like it has over the past couple days whether you like it or not. Numerous members of the forum are discussing it and engaging in it and the notion that those doing it should be banned because you've appointed yourself cop is ridiculous.

You can find another way to deal with it besides threats, thanks.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Vince Dunn looks good for the Kraken. The whole Kraken team impresses me with how they play the game and the structure they have. I wouldn't say their team is better than our team, when it is healthy, on paper but it works much better. They play as a 5 man unit, unlike our disjointed group which seems to be doing 10 different things at once

Kraken are playing great, but just like we learned that we had unsustainable shooting percentage last year, they have highest 5x5 shooting percentage on record. They aren’t this good.

 

[Brockon]

So you acknowledge it hasn't been discussed intently for awhile but you will absolutely not allow it because you get to make that decision for everyone and you will have people banned if they discuss it?

The first post at the top of the previous page explains why it can and will be discussed when it organically crops up like it has over the past couple days whether you like it or not. Numerous members of the forum are discussing it and engaging in it and the notion that those doing it should be banned because you've appointed yourself cop is ridiculous.

You can find another way to deal with it besides threats, thanks.

My previous post garnered some likes, so I'm not alone in being over this discussion, which has completely taken over this particular thread. What I'm highlighting is that the Pietrangelo discussion is old news. It's certainly not contemporary content from around the NHL. If you're deadset on this discussion you're involved in - take it somewhere else so I can read current discussions?

To add to my frustration with the resurrection of the topic, regardless of how organically it came up - the dialogue has become a game of twisting each other's responses by cherry picking certain aspects of stl76's response and vice versa... It's grown heated in language and is creating a quasi hostile environment in what should be a light atmosphere to discuss our favourite team.

So, yeah, I'm going to weigh in here. Call me cop, whatever... Someone has to draw a line somewhere, and if that has to be me - so be it.

For all I know, I could be the one looking at reprimands for my use of language and directly addressing this as opposed to reaching out to a mod - and I really don't care, because this nature of discussion is what soured me on the board to begin with. If it's going to come back and dominate discussions again, I won't miss reading it while I serve my ban.

 

[Brockon]

Vince Dunn looks good for the Kraken. The whole Kraken team impresses me with how they play the game and the structure they have. I wouldn't say their team is better than our team, when it is healthy, on paper but it works much better. They play as a 5 man unit, unlike our disjointed group which seems to be doing 10 different things at once

I'm seeing shades of Vegas' inaugural season looking at how the Kraken are performing this season. Guys are playing for each other to use the cliché.

That's something I haven't seen nearly as much of in our games this year as I'd like.

Guys taking the hit to make the play as opposed to dumping the puck out or ringing it around the boards instead of taking a few strides to find a passing lane for the break out.

Binnington has tried to fire up the team with a few questionable actions that earned him a Berube reprimand and considerable criticism around the league. This isn't exactly what I envision when I say guys playing for each other, but it does qualify. Bortz for all the criticisms he draws from fans is out there dropping the gloves, making big hits and blocking shots - he's a glue guy doing what's asked of him like a pro.

Seattle in my limited viewings has definitely got some decent chemistry going on, in addition to Matty Beniers looking really good in his rookie season.

Francis has done a lot better job putting the team together than I'd initially thought, and he's still got cap space and draft capital to work with moving forward. His notables to re-sign this summer are Dunn, Jones and Soucy with 20m in cap for 9 roster spots. None of Donato, Geekie, Hayden, Sprong, Fleury and Borgen are going to break the bank with the raises due. Donskoi hasn't played so far this season and it doesn't look like the Kraken missed him at all.

Kraken are playing great, but just like we learned that we had unsustainable shooting percentage last year, they have highest 5x5 shooting percentage on record. They aren’t this good.

Their shooting percentage will likely self correct, but I think certain players like Eberle and McCann are flourishing because the system plays to their strengths as opposed to them having to mold to the Trotz or Sullivan system (while being a depth/role piece behind Crosby and Malkin).

Dunn has been playing really well. He's been given all the ice time he could want (23:42 ATOI this season, up 3 mins from last season and significantly higher than the 19:15 in his last season in St Louis) and he's making full use of it in a contract year. He's now 2 points shy of his career high 35 and still has another 38 games to play this season - good for him. I don’t think he ever attains these heights in St Louis, because of usage and given role.

 

[PocketNines]

My previous post garnered some likes, so I'm not alone in being over this discussion, which has completely taken over this particular thread. What I'm highlighting is that the Pietrangelo discussion is old news. It's certainly not contemporary content from around the NHL. If you're deadset on this discussion you're involved in - take it somewhere else so I can read current discussions?

To add to my frustration with the resurrection of the topic, regardless of how organically it came up - the dialogue has become a game of twisting each other's responses by cherry picking certain aspects of stl76's response and vice versa... It's grown heated in language and is creating a quasi hostile environment in what should be a light atmosphere to discuss our favourite team.

So, yeah, I'm going to weigh in here. Call me cop, whatever... Someone has to draw a line somewhere, and if that has to be me - so be it.

For all I know, I could be the one looking at reprimands for my use of language and directly addressing this as opposed to reaching out to a mod - and I really don't care, because this nature of discussion is what soured me on the board to begin with. If it's going to come back and dominate discussions again, I won't miss reading it while I serve my ban.

It's a shame that you're going to appoint yourself petition starter for a ban for Brian39 since he has several posts on the subject today in this thread. He seems like a solid poster. But you did garner a couple likes after all, so adios Brian! You can't skim past a couple pages, nope he has to go. Very reasonable.