Ego vs Immortality Framed Forever

[BlueSeal]

The simple truth is Armstrong and the Blues showed they were willing to move from their line to get him to stay, Pietrangelo did not. As little as you want to argue they did, they still did more. It’s fine if you argue the money and NMC, but you have to drop the narrative that Pietrangelo wanted to stay here.

If the team wasn’t going to give him an NMC what was he supposed to do? And why wouldn’t the team offer him one especially if there’s a chance that Tarasenko comes off LTIR a shell of his former self - Pie contributes offensively as well and was one of our big guns on a team that traditionally has issues putting up goals. Just makes no sense to me. Only reason I’m beating a dead horse.

 

[Brian39]

That’s a nice straw man you’ve made, but that’s about all it is.

And yet one post later you again say "The simple truth is Armstrong and the Blues showed they were willing to move from their line to get him to stay, Pietrangelo did not."

So again, is your stance that a negotiation is simply about moving to the middle of two proposals, no matter where each proposal begins?

The employer in my hypothetical moved from their line in the sand. They didn't move to a position that was remotely acceptable, but they did move.

Are you saying that a person who has one single non-negotiable position within a framework of 10+ considerations is wholly unwilling to negotiate? You are consistently making this a black/white issue of "well one side moved and the other didn't so the non-moving side clearly had no interest in reaching an agreement."

 

[Stelmacki]

If the team wasn’t going to give him an NMC what was he supposed to do? And why wouldn’t the team offer him one especially if there’s a chance that Tarasenko comes off LTIR a shell of his former self - Pie contributes offensively as well and was one of our big guns on a team that traditionally has issues putting up goals. Just makes no sense to me. Only reason I’m beating a dead horse.

Sadly, we will never find out what broke down in the negotiations. Something was obviously said that set this all in motion and I do not believe it was about the NMC.

 

[Stelmacki]

And yet one post later you again say "The simple truth is Armstrong and the Blues showed they were willing to move from their line to get him to stay, Pietrangelo did not."

So again, is your stance that a negotiation is simply about moving to the middle of two proposals, no matter where each proposal begins?

I didn’t say middle and we are both smart enough to know the Blues didn’t start at a low point reflected in your “example”.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I vehemently disagree with this statement.

The reported 8x8 is $2.4M more in real dollars. He will achieve some tax savings from playing/residing in a tax free state, but it almost certainly won't be $2.4M. Assuming he doesn't have a tax attorney to reduce his tax burden at all:

NHL contracts include a clause that signing bonuses do not have to be paid out if the player refuses to report to the team. Petro can't just not show up to camp this fall and demand that Vegas pay out the $35M in signing bonuses. Due to this, the bonus is not viewed as completely separate from work performance by the IRS and is subject to the same "taxed where you play" requirements that salary is. Additionally, if he is able to successfully argue that all $35M of bonus money vested when he signed and was not contingent on future performance, he would get taxed on all of that money as a resident of Missouri. Because he was unquestionably a Missouri resident for the majority of 2020 and on the day he put pen to paper. There is no reality where he can legally claim all of that bonus money as a resident of Vegas and also not subject to "road taxes." If he doesn't report it as income to road states, then MO is going to come after him for taxes on $35M of income he claims vested while he was a MO resident that was wholly independent of him performing any work within the state of Nevada.

Half of his salary and bonuses benefit from a 0% state income tax vs Missouri's 5.5% tax rate. That is a tax savings of $1.7M over the life of the deal. However, by playing in the Pacific instead of the Central he is going to get taxed at a higher rate on his road games than playing in the Central. Being in the Pacific division means more games in California than he would have played here. It means more games in Canada than he would have here. It means fewer games in tax-free Dallas/Nashville than he would have played here. The difference between California/Canada tax and basically every non-Winnipeg Central division tax rate is substantial. 1 road game in California instead of Dallas costs a player as much in taxes as they save in 2.5 home games in Vegas. You get the same rate in California vs Nashville. That 3rd extra game in California instead of Colorado costs about as much extra as they saved in 1 Vegas home game. Going to Canada instead of Minnesota wipes out the savings of another home game. Same thing with going to Canada instead of Chicago. So the extra taxes on road games wipes out about 8 games worth of the savings realized by playing home games at 0% state tax vs Missouri's state income tax. That is 20% of that $1.7M tax savings over the life of the contract, which brings the total amount of money gained by playing with no state tax to around $1.35M. That is still puts his take home pay short of what we offered by about $1M.

The tax savings become even less when you factor in all of the deductions, tax exempt investment strategies, etc he is able to utilize to minimize his tax burden. The more you reduce your taxable income via those methods, the less of an impact state tax makes on his take home pay.

Nothing about the info we have suggests that his take home pay on $61.6M in Vegas will be more than his take home pay on $64M here.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. What you’re saying here contradicts opinions I’ve read from accountants in discussing pro athlete contracts. But I’m not an expert on taxes/contracts, so I won’t dispute you. Maybe I’ve listened to mistakes.

I find it hard to follow the logic of Pietro’s bonus money for future years being taxed as a Missouri resident. I’m not convinced about that. If he’d signed the same deal for Anaheim, I would be pretty surprised if California tax authorities interpreted it such that he should be paying Missouri tax on it on Year 6 bonuses. Seems like the same argument.

I can at least concede that your original argument wasn’t disingenuous, since you strongly believe he really will bank less in Vegas. If that’s all correct, it’s even more disappointing that St Louis couldn’t offer something more enticing.

 

[Brian39]

I didn’t say middle and we are both smart enough to know the Blues didn’t start at a low point reflected in your “example”.

No NMC in any single season is absolutely an absurdly low point when negotiating with top end NHL talent. Every single comp for Petro got at least some form of NMC protection.

If you are saying the Blues moved from "no NMC" to "some limited NMC" as a concession, then yes they started at an absurd low point.

Josi has a full NMC in every year of his deal.

OEL has a full NMC in every year of his deal.

Trouba has a full NMC in 4 years of his deal.

Hedman has 5 years of a full NMC.

Spurgeon has 4 years of a full NMC.

Vlasic has 5 years of a full NMC

Seabrook has 6 years of a full NMC

A starting point of "we won't give a NMC at all" for the premier UFA and top end NHL D man is an absurd low point.

 

[Renard]

Petro's words say one thing, his actions say something else.

 

[Brian39]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. What you’re saying here contradicts opinions I’ve read from accountants in discussing pro athlete contracts. But I’m not an expert on taxes/contracts, so I won’t dispute you. Maybe I’ve listened to mistakes.

I find it hard to follow the logic of Pietro’s bonus money for future years being taxed as a Missouri resident. I’m not convinced about that. If he’d signed the same deal for Anaheim, I would be pretty surprised if California tax authorities interpreted it such that he should be paying Missouri tax on it on Year 6 bonuses. Seems like the same argument.

I can at least concede that your original argument wasn’t disingenuous, since you strongly believe he really will bank less in Vegas. If that’s all correct, it’s even more disappointing that St Louis couldn’t offer something more enticing.

I apologize for the length, but here is as brief as I can make it:

A player/employee is generally taxed where the work is done, not where the employer is located. That is how we get to the "jock tax" situation where game checks for road games are taxed in the states/provinces where the games take place. This obviously applies to salary since by definition salary is payment for the work that was done. That work was done in the road building, so it is taxed there.

Now, a player/employee might try to argue that a signing bonus is different from salary because it is simply a bonus for joining the employer and not the work done throughout the contract. For tax purposes, this argument will only be upheld if the player/employee can demonstrate that the bonus truly was independent of work done under the contract. They would have to demonstrate that they would still be owed all of that bonus money even if they failed to perform the work requirements of the contract. That is not the case with NHL contracts. The SPC states that a player who refuses to report to the team will not receive any bonuses still owed and may even have to return already paid bonuses. Due to this, the tax authorities point to that clause and say "no, this was not just a bonus paid to get you into the organization. This was a bonus contingent on continued work throughout the contract and is the subject to taxation at the places where the work was performed." In order to avoid paying jock taxes on bonus money, the player would have to demonstrate that the bonus vested in full the instant he signs the contract. Because that is not the case with NHL contracts, the bonuses are taxed at the location where work is done (in other words, road games are taxed at the rate of the home building).

But let's say that Petro did successfully argue that the $35M vested the instant he put pen to paper without creating any further work obligation on his end. In this scenario, the bonus money gets taxed at the employee/player's place of residency at the time the bonus fully vested. Guess what? By any measure, that was Missouri or Canada. He owned residences in Missouri and Canada, but not Nevada. Through the duration of 2020 he either spend the majority of his time living in Missouri or Canada. He never lived in Nevada prior to signing the contract and even returned to Missouri before the contract was approved by the NHL. There is no valid claim of Nevada residency at the time he signed the contract and the bonuses could have theoretically vested. So to summarize: in order to exempt the bonuses from the jock tax, he would have to demonstrate that they vested in full the day he signed his contract. Such a signing bonus is taxed by the place where the employee/player resided at the moment it fully vested. That residency would have still been Missouri (or theoretically Canada).

So the instant he tries to avoid the jock tax by refusing to claim the bonus money as MO income but instead a fully vested signing bonus, the state of Missouri will say "great, you were a resident when that signing bonus vested so all $35M is taxable income in our state." If he tries to pay the jock tax on his bonus money in MO to avoid that, but then refuses to pay that tax in other states, then he is going to get audited almost immediately and will face substantial penalties for claiming the same income in polar opposite ways to try and avoid paying taxes.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I apologize for the length, but here is as brief as I can make it:

A player/employee is generally taxed where the work is done, not where the employer is located. That is how we get to the "jock tax" situation where game checks for road games are taxed in the states/provinces where the games take place. This obviously applies to salary since by definition salary is payment for the work that was done. That work was done in the road building, so it is taxed there.

Now, a player/employee might try to argue that a signing bonus is different from salary because it is simply a bonus for joining the employer and not the work done throughout the contract. For tax purposes, this argument will only be upheld if the player/employee can demonstrate that the bonus truly was independent of work done under the contract. They would have to demonstrate that they would still be owed all of that bonus money even if they failed to perform the work requirements of the contract. That is not the case with NHL contracts. The SPC states that a player who refuses to report to the team will not receive any bonuses still owed and may even have to return already paid bonuses. Due to this, the tax authorities point to that clause and say "no, this was not just a bonus paid to get you into the organization. This was a bonus contingent on continued work throughout the contract and is the subject to taxation at the places where the work was performed." In order to avoid paying jock taxes on bonus money, the player would have to demonstrate that the bonus vested in full the instant he signs the contract. Because that is not the case with NHL contracts, the bonuses are taxed at the location where work is done (in other words, road games are taxed at the rate of the home building).

But let's say that Petro did successfully argue that the $35M vested the instant he put pen to paper without creating any further work obligation on his end. In this scenario, the bonus money gets taxed at the employee/player's place of residency at the time the bonus fully vested. Guess what? By any measure, that was Missouri or Canada. He owned residences in Missouri and Canada, but not Nevada. Through the duration of 2020 he either spend the majority of his time living in Missouri or Canada. He never lived in Nevada prior to signing the contract and even returned to Missouri before the contract was approved to the NHL. There is no valid claim of residency at the time he signed the contract and the bonuses could have theoretically vested.

Does anyone in the NHL try to make that argument (vesting multiple years’ bonuses)?

If we take all that as true, what are the advantages to the player then, other than receiving the money months early where it’s available for growth investments sooner? (That’s not a trivial difference, and also would eat into the difference between contracts from Blues 8y and Vegas 7y). I strongly suspect the Vegas contract was intended to match the Blues’ 8y by some measure.

We’ve already seen a guy like ROR be traded with large bonus money payments in place. A mid-season trade could still be possible, and in fact I could see a way to use players as currency to get more of a return in other assets, if zero salary is owed but they still come with their Cap number. A deep pockets owner could use the bonus structure to make a player MORE appealing. What other advantages are the players getting here?

 

[TurgPavs]

Yet he took less money. Weird.

Your logic is:

1: He wanted a full NMC
2: The Blues made a partial concession and offered a partial NMC
3: Thus, by rejecting an offer where the team got closer but didn't actually meet his goal, his decision was clearly about another factor.

This is not supported by the evidence we have.

One side budging on item A, but not conceding item A absolutely does not mean that the other side really had item B as their top priority. Army stated that he was offered a 'NMC that was partial and for certain years.' There is no evidence that the Blues offered a full NMC for any single year of the contract and it is clear from that statement that we certainly didn't offer a NMC for the duration of the contract. Literally no one is saying that the Blues made one offer and then didn't budge. No one is saying that the Blues didn't offer any type of movement protection. What has been said and what is supported by Army himself is that the movement protection offered by the Blues fell noticeably short of what he was offered by Vegas.

We have zero information about how much bonus money the Blues were willing to give Petro. We do know that the Blues offered bonus money to Petro, we just don't know how much. It is 100% incorrect to say that you know the Blues were not going to match the bonuses he wanted. Stating it as fact is absurd. We took on $27.5M in bonus money for ROR over a 5 year period. That makes up 84% of the money we will pay ROR. Vegas gave Petro $35M in bonus money over a 7 year deal, which makes up 57% of the money owed. It is not at all a given that we weren't willing to similarly structure a Petro deal. We may not have been willing to do so, but it is absolutely not a given.

We also know that the Blues offered more actual money to Petro. We offered $64M compared to $61.6M.

There is zero actual evidence to support the claim that it was all about money. There is tangible evidence that Vegas offered a more robust NMC than the partial/limited year NMC the Blues offered. It is a giant leap in logic that requires multiple assumptions to look at all that and come to the conclusion that the full NMC wasn't actually important to Petro and him requesting it was really just a smoke screen to try and get more money (before ultimately taking less money).

I never said the Blues offered Bonus money, to the contrary, everything I have read supports that the Blues never offered any bonus money.
He was offered a partial NMC, similar to what Spurgeon, Hedman, Doughty, Trouba etc have at the tail end of their contracts.
So 6 out of the 10, highest paid defensemen have a partial NMC or simply dont have a NMC in their contracts.

The Vegas contract is for 61.6 million, the Blues 64 million.
-Right off the bat that is 3.26 million in saving in the State Income Tax column that Petro will save. That number alone means the Vegas contract is more vauable.
-35 million in signing bonus is not subject to escrow, another win for Petro
-35 million in signing bonus HAS to be paid out regardless of being bought out or in the case of a lockout, again another win for Petro.

I see this differently, this was all about money for Petro and it should be, he has earned that right. The argument about security is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Brian39]

Does anyone in the NHL try to make that argument (vesting multiple years’ bonuses)?

If we take all that as true, what are the advantages to the player then, other than receiving the money months early where it’s available for growth investments sooner? (That’s not a trivial difference, and also would eat into the difference between contracts from Blues 8y and Vegas 7y). I strongly suspect the Vegas contract was intended to match the Blues’ 8y by some measure.

We’ve already seen a guy like ROR be traded with large bonus money payments in place. A mid-season trade could still be possible, and in fact I could see a way to use players as currency to get more of a return in other assets, if zero salary is owed but they still come with their Cap number. A deep pockets owner could use the bonus structure to make a player MORE appealing. What other advantages are the players getting here?

I doubt it. It is pretty settled law that sports signing bonuses contingent on showing up to work are structural in nature and not bonuses for tax purposes. Maybe a few guys would have tried, but they would have been unsuccessful and their eventual settlement likely would have stayed private.

There are a few advantages to bonuses:

#1: Signing bonuses are paid in full in the event of a lockout. If the league decides not to utilize the player's services through no fault of the player, that bonus money is paid in full. This isn't the case with salary. There isn't much lockout concern right now, but there is another potential fight coming: there is a disagreement between the NHL an the PA about whether the return to play agreement and CBA extension allows the league to prorate salaries if we don't play 82 games next year. I think the NHLPA wins that fight, but there is a non-zero chance it goes to arbitration and an arbitrator rules that salaries can be prorated but bonuses aren't.

#2: If a player is bought out, signing bonuses are paid in full while the team only has to pay 2/3 of the remaining salary. It also increases the cap consequences of a buyout. Robust bonuses make it less likely that you will get bought out and ensure you get more of your money if you do.

#3: Unless you are brutal with money, getting a few million dollars on July 1 allows you to invest it and start earning interest immediately. Like you said, availability for investments isn't a trivial matter.

#4: Ego. What is the largest check you have ever gotten? Who doesn't want to wake up to several million dollars suddenly appearing in your account overnight? Not everything about these negotiations is about maximizing every last cent. Pro athletes are really damn competitive and bonus money has become one of the popular "see, look at my value" competitions. I think this is less of a factor than the other 3, but it is undeniably there. In a marketplace with several artificial/structural limitations to how a highly skilled employee can get compensated for his services, you are going to see the highest skilled employees clamor for the advantages that exist within that system.

 

[Em etah Eh]

he certainly didn’t want his kids to grow up near their grandparents.

And he didn’t want to be shipped off to Buffalo 3 years down the line either. If the choice is to sign with your 1st out of 31 options with the possibility of ending up having to move to #20 sometime down the line, or signing with the 2nd/3rd option and full control of staying their over the duration of the contract what would you do?

NMCs are a real thing and I’m sure no GMs like giving them, but I think GMs like having star players too.

 

[Brian39]

I never said the Blues offered Bonus money, to the contrary, everything I have read supports that the Blues never offered any bonus money.

Armstrong flat out said that the bonuses were included in the offer made to Petro. I don't know what to tell you if you want to pretend bonuses weren't a part of it. We don't know the exact amount of those bonuses, but we know there were bonuses. There is zero evidence to support your broad assertion that Vegas offered a favorable bonus structure. There is direct evidence from our GM that you are incorrect about the Blues never offering bonus money.

He was offered a partial NMC, similar to what Spurgeon, Hedman, Doughty, Trouba etc have at the tail end of their contracts.
So 6 out of the 10, highest paid defensemen have a partial NMC or simply dont have a NMC in their contracts.

3 of the 10 did not get any form of NMC in their deal. The top 6 highest paid D men each got a NMC. When you say that Petro was offered something "similar to what others were offered" you are referring to the Blues final offer, not their original offer. The original offer that you praise them for making concessions on didn't include that and is thus squarely not reasonable within what the marketplace for a guy like Petro is. Which is literally my point. If the starting offer is unreasonable (no NMC at all) then moving to a reasonable position (some NMC) doesn't show that they are any more willing to "negotiate" than the other party.

The Vegas contract is for 61.6 million, the Blues 64 million.
-Right off the bat that is 3.26 million in saving in the State Income Tax column that Petro will save. That number alone means the Vegas contract is more vauable.

Incorrect. He only avoids state tax on half of his money. Players pay taxes based on where the games are played, so road games are subject to tax at the rate of the building they are played in. He pays zero income tax on half of his compensation. However, the Pacific division is home to more high tax teams in California and Canada than the Central division is, meaning he will get dinged on road games at a higher rate. I have a lengthy post elsewhere detailing it, but he will save about $1.35M in taxes across the life of his contract than he would have paid in St. Louis. That is assuming his financial planner is a disaster and he takes zero steps to reduce his tax burden. Any deductions, charitable donations, investing, retirement planning that reduces his taxable income further reduce the amount of money "saved" by living in a state-tax-free state.

-35 million in signing bonus is not subject to escrow, another win for Petro

Wildly incorrect. Bonus money is absolutely subject to escrow. All player compensation is subject to escrow and is part of the calculation to determine the 50/50 revenue share.

-35 million in signing bonus HAS to be paid out regardless of being bought out or in the case of a lockout, again another win for Petro.

Correct. And as mentioned above, Army stated that the offer had signing bonuses. No one knows the value of bonuses offered so arguing that Petro won by getting $35M in bonus money from Vegas is unsupported by the facts we know. You can feel it in your gut that we offered less, but that doesn't make it so. We can say it was all about money if/when we learn the amount of the bonuses offered, but until then you are just guessing.

I see this differently, this was all about money for Petro and it should be, he has earned that right. The argument about security is absolutely ridiculous.

And again, your view is not supported by reality. You are misinformed about the tax advantages Vegas had to offer, you are misinformed about the financial advantage of signing bonuses, you are either misinformed or ignoring that our GM is on record that we offered signing bonuses and you have zero actual data to support the idea that the Vegas contract is more lucrative for him.

The tangible evidence we do have is that he took a contract which does offer the full NMC he wanted. It is ludicrous to look at that and claim it is "absolutely ridiculous" that he valued security. It is literally the only piece of the contract that we can confidently say Vegas outbid the Blues on.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Didn't Brett Hull leave over an NTC and win the cup the next year with Dallas? He still got his statue and banner and is beloved by everyone and he even played for that stacked Detroit squad. He committed far worse crimes to the fans than Petro leaving over a full nmc imo

I thought Hull left over a few things:

1. Wanting a NTC, which Pleau was unwilling to give
2. Wanting Quenneville out, which Pleau wasn't going to do [I mention this because I swear I remember Hull having given Pleau an either he's gone or I'm gone ultimatum at some point in 1998]
3. Wanting to be able to focus again on the offensive side of things and not be forced to play 2-way hockey like Quenneville wanted, because that was cutting into his goal-scoring [which then came as a major shock to him when Hitchcock demanded he play 2-way hockey in Dallas, Hull predictably refused, and Hitch sat him in the press box one night over it and management backed the coach]

 

[TurgPavs]

Armstrong flat out said that the bonuses were included in the offer made to Petro. I don't know what to tell you if you want to pretend bonuses weren't a part of it. We don't know the exact amount of those bonuses, but we know there were bonuses. There is zero evidence to support your broad assertion that Vegas offered a favorable bonus structure. There is direct evidence from our GM that you are incorrect about the Blues never offering bonus money.



3 of the 10 did not get any form of NMC in their deal. The top 6 highest paid D men each got a NMC. When you say that Petro was offered something "similar to what others were offered" you are referring to the Blues final offer, not their original offer. The original offer that you praise them for making concessions on didn't include that and is thus squarely not reasonable within what the marketplace for a guy like Petro is. Which is literally my point. If the starting offer is unreasonable (no NMC at all) then moving to a reasonable position (some NMC) doesn't show that they are any more willing to "negotiate" than the other party.




Incorrect. He only avoids state tax on half of his money. Players pay taxes based on where the games are played, so road games are subject to tax at the rate of the building they are played in. He pays zero income tax on half of his compensation. However, the Pacific division is home to more high tax teams in California and Canada than the Central division is, meaning he will get dinged on road games at a higher rate. I have a lengthy post elsewhere detailing it, but he will save about $1.35M in taxes across the life of his contract than he would have paid in St. Louis. That is assuming his financial planner is a disaster and he takes zero steps to reduce his tax burden. Any deductions, charitable donations, investing, retirement planning that reduces his taxable income further reduce the amount of money "saved" by living in a state-tax-free state.



Wildly incorrect. Bonus money is absolutely subject to escrow. All player compensation is subject to escrow and is part of the calculation to determine the 50/50 revenue share.



Correct. And as mentioned above, Army stated that the offer had signing bonuses. No one knows the value of bonuses offered so arguing that Petro won by getting $35M in bonus money from Vegas is unsupported by the facts we know. You can feel it in your gut that we offered less, but that doesn't make it so. We can say it was all about money if/when we learn the amount of the bonuses offered, but until then you are just guessing.


And again, your view is not supported by reality. You are misinformed about the tax advantages Vegas had to offer, you are misinformed about the financial advantage of signing bonuses, you are either misinformed or ignoring that our GM is on record that we offered signing bonuses and you have zero actual data to support the idea that the Vegas contract is more lucrative for him.

The tangible evidence we do have is that he took a contract which does offer the full NMC he wanted. It is ludicrous to look at that and claim it is "absolutely ridiculous" that he valued security. It is literally the only piece of the contract that we can confidently say Vegas outbid the Blues on.

Appreciate your thoughts, but you now posting many incorrect statements.

First off, many states, use a formula based on total days worked, not total games played. So no half off Petro's money is not subject to other states taxes. Kurt Badenhausen from Forbes has several article on sports taxes. Last season, Vegas was scheduled to play 7 games in states that do not have a state tax.
But again most, not all, of the states base their state taxes on a formula of percentage of total days employment in the state.
Dont forget the earnings tax in the City of St. Louis that pro athletes have to pay as well.

On the escrow subject, I apologize for not clarifying that. The actual signing bonus payment does not have escrow taken out of it. Indeed the escrow is taken out of the regular 12 paychecks to compensated for the bonus amount, however the signing bonus payment does not have the deduction.

From
How Much Do NHL Players Really Make?

Escrow is not directly deducted from a signing bonus payment though, the amount due from those bonuses is taken off salary payments throughout the season.

But here is the main question. Was it unreasonable that the Blues didnt offer any sort of NMC in the first offer? I would agree with that. However, Newport and Petro stated they would move down to a Josi type of deal after Josi signed his deal and well before COVID hit. So assuming their 9.5+ demand was out there, was that an unreasonable offer? Considering the rest of the contracts of other defensemen?

Thats the part that many seem to forget, Army didnt just go out and trade for Faulk on a whim, clearly the open salvo fired by Newport and Petro was pretty high, and the demands where large enough for a NHL GM, to trade a top prospect, a top 4 defensemen, plus, to get Faulk.

Assuming that the original ask was 9.5 million, with 35-40 million paid out in bonus money and a full NMC, how far to Petro and his agent move off those demands, to the Blues? We will likely never know. Rivs and BK stated that the first offer to Petro was in the 7.7 range over 8 years, they ended up at 8 million, with a partial NMC, and some sort of signing bonus.

So the Blues came up on the salary, gave some ground on a bonus and NMC, and from Lou Korac, came up on salary term.

What did Petro's Team concede?

Again this was all about money, the same as it was on his first contract, he went for the max dollar in his pocket, the NMC is complete and udder crap.

You can view the Faulk and even the Krug signing a "I will show you" move by Army, but many would also show the Faulk and Krug signing as Army protecting the future of the club when the demands of 1 out weighed the team.

 

[DoubleK81]

The 1st cup caption puts him in elite player discussion sorry It just does

So I guess Rod Brind'Amour is/was elite too then?

 

[blues80]

So I guess Rod Brind'Amour is/was elite too then?

Give faulk 27 haha

 

[Captain Creampuff]

Pulled a Pujols.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The structure the Blues reportedly offered is a huge step below his market value.

Is 8x8 a huge step below his market value? It's certainly not market value, but it's not what I'd consider huge. I'd certainly describe it as "under" but not "well under" without knowing how 8x8 was put together.

Is 5x7 - the offer Armstrong reportedly had early on - a huge step below his market value? f*** yeah it is, and I don't have to know anything about how it's structured.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Nothing about the info we have suggests that his take home pay on $61.6M in Vegas will be more than his take home pay on $64M here.

I wonder how much that changes if '20-21 isn't a full season. Assuming he was asked to take 8x8 with '20-21 being say $10 million with $1 million of it signing bonus, then ignoring tax impacts and assuming we only play 60% of a season for '20-21 and all other seasons are unimpacted and salaries are pro-rated accordingly (which I'm willing to bet happens):
* He'd get $4.2 million this year from Vegas + $56.6 million in the remaining years = $60.8 million total
* He'd get $6.4 million this year from St. Louis + $53 million in the remaining years = $59.4 million total

I'd like to see someone in finance who with this kind of stuff semi-regularly opine on it.

 

[Blueline2757]

One thing I'm getting tired of seeing on various social media over the past days is the constant Petro bashing I've even seen it on this forum. I thought Blues fans are classier than that. I know it sucks with the way he went out but i think the bashing and the saltiness is getting a little ridiculous. Rant over

 

[EastonBlues22]

Is 8x8 a huge step below his market value? It's certainly not market value, but it's not what I'd consider huge. I'd certainly describe it as "under" but not "well under" without knowing how 8x8 was put together.

Is 5x7 - the offer Armstrong reportedly had early on - a huge step below his market value? f*** yeah it is, and I don't have to know anything about how it's structured.

By structure I meant the clause/bonus structure.

From what Armstrong said, it sounds like the partial NMC only covered a few years (as in, say, not 5...which I think would have been described as "most" years), and I really don't think he would describe $20+ million in bonus money as "some" bonus money given his stance on it, especially when he was already extolling the virtues of ownership and otherwise firmly in PR mode. In other words, if "some" is the most PR friendly slant he felt he could put on it while staying in touch with the truth, then it clearly wasn't much. I also think he would have talked it up far more if they had really pushed their comfort zone on that and included serious bonus money. It would have made him look good, and ownership, and there's no reason not to add to the impression of how much they bent over backwards to do something special for Pietrangelo (as they were already doing with the talk about the partial NMC). Instead Armstrong literally said a handful of vague words about offering "some" bonus money, conveyed seemingly as an afterthought when discussing how they tried to give Pietrangelo what he wanted, and then immediately moved on.

We don't know the specifics, granted, but it sure doesn't sound like the overall package was particularly close based on what's been said...and I think that's reflected in the reactions that both parties had to the negotiation process. Nothing I've seen has ever given the impression that the two sides were ever in the ballpark of what the other was looking for.

 

[Renard]

I thought Hull left over a few things:

1. Wanting a NTC, which Pleau was unwilling to give
2. Wanting Quenneville out, which Pleau wasn't going to do [I mention this because I swear I remember Hull having given Pleau an either he's gone or I'm gone ultimatum at some point in 1998]
3. Wanting to be able to focus again on the offensive side of things and not be forced to play 2-way hockey like Quenneville wanted, because that was cutting into his goal-scoring [which then came as a major shock to him when Hitchcock demanded he play 2-way hockey in Dallas, Hull predictably refused, and Hitch sat him in the press box one night over it and management backed the coach]

The story I heard at the time was that Quenneville wanted Hull out, and threatened to leave if Hull didn't go. The Blues management was tired of Hull's rebellious actions, including firing a puck at Quenneville in a practice, and let the Blues be outbid for Hull's services.

Hull went to a team that had an established star, and Hull couldn't be the prima donna there that he was here.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

By structure I meant the clause/bonus structure.

From what Armstrong said, it sounds like the partial NMC only covered a few years (as in, say, not 5...which I think would have been described as "most" years), and I really don't think he would describe $20+ million in bonus money as "some" bonus money given his stance on it, especially when he was already extolling the virtues of ownership and otherwise firmly in PR mode. In other words, if "some" is the most PR friendly slant he felt he could put on it while staying in touch with the truth, then it clearly wasn't much. I also think he would have talked it up far more if they had really pushed their comfort zone on that and included serious bonus money. It would have made him look good, and ownership, and there's no reason not to add to the impression of how much they bent over backwards to do something special for Pietrangelo (as they were already doing with the talk about the partial NMC). Instead Armstrong literally said a handful of vague words about offering "some" bonus money, conveyed seemingly as an afterthought when discussing how they tried to give Pietrangelo what he wanted, and then immediately moved on.

We don't know the specifics, granted, but it sure doesn't sound like the overall package was particularly close based on what's been said...and I think that's reflected in the reactions that both parties had to the negotiation process. Nothing I've seen has ever given the impression that the two sides were ever in the ballpark of what the other was looking for.

Agreed with all of this. For Armstrong to go from an early reported 5x7 to 8x8 at the end suggests he didn't do that all on his own. I don't think he would have gone to even $20 million in signing bonus money on his own. That's why I think Stillman was far more involved, even if he wasn't directly involved. But the vagueness of details, on both sides, says a lot about how close they really were.

And the point about the PR spin is critical to understand. I mean, we're already seeing it with "some signing bonus money" being interpreted as "a lot, probably close to what Pietrangelo wanted" in some circles and "partial NMC" being treated as "look, he was willing to give an NMC, did it really have to be a full one?" There's a lot of wiggle room left in there, and if that gap was big I can see where Pietrangelo doesn't move off his position at all.

 

[TruBlu]

What exactly is market value right now in the covid era? I would argue we can't use past comparables. In fact, I'd argue we're setting them now. It's obvious both sides moved, however, it's also obvious neither one was going to give once they reached a certain line in the sand. Unfortunately for both sides, that didn't allow them to come to an agreement. Petro's gone and our D corps is much different, but I'm still very optimistic about this coming season. There are some positives to not signing Petro since we now have the ability to make some moves. I'm interested to see what moves are made to strengthen our top 6. That's an area that really needs addressed right now.