Confirmed with Link: Torey Krug (7 years @ $6.5m)

[Em etah Eh]

Think of this....

If DA didn't go after Krug and waited on AP, who would we have now??????.

Cap space to take advantage of a team trying to shed players that can play D like Toews, or Schmidt.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

I know he gave them NTC’s...

There's a big difference between a NMC and a NTC

 

[Celtic Note]

To everyone complaining about Krug and Dunn having high % of offensive zone starts consider this, Why would you start anyone but Parayko in the Dzone when you have a choice?

Because you don’t want to wear out your players. Is he going to play nearly half of a game, every game?

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Cap space to take advantage of a team trying to shed players that can play D like Toews, or Schmidt.

Maybe, but that assumes they want to be here...

 

[Em etah Eh]

There's a big difference between a NMC and a NTC

I know, you can’t be pushed to the AHL or put in an expansion draft. Neither of which should even be a remote possibility when spending that amount of coin on a player.
My point was that there’s 91M reasons that F&K aren’t moving anywhere. But hey, at least we can assign them to the AHL if they suck bad enough. Yay.

 

[Vektor]

What does the NMC have to do with competitiveness? Armstrong gave F&K no movement clauses the second they inked those deals...

Because Pietrangelo wanted a full NMC (like he got in Vegas). That means we can not trade him at any point of the 8 years he would have signed for. 8 million on the books for 8 years without being able to offload that greatly hinders the teams ability to maneuver the cap and remain competitive. I am pretty sure that both Krug and Faulk's clauses are modified to loosen at some point.

 

[Mike Liut]

Krug is going to be a fan favorite and absolutely excel here

 

[Em etah Eh]

Maybe, but that assumes they want to be here...

Did either have NTC’s yet? They are young players that probably don’t even have clauses yet. And those were just a few recent examples. I’d rather have the cap space and flexibility. We rushed to use up our cap space the first day we could. Look guys, we did something...

 

[WATTAGE4451]

There's a big difference between a NMC and a NTC

Not really. At least not vs a full no trade clause(partials are different story) Nmc just additionally prohibits leaving exposed to expansion draft or waiving to minor leagues or for purpose of letting another team claim contract off waivers.

Since the last 2 rarely happen anyway with these types of players and contracts we are really only talking expansion draft protection being only difference from full no trade clause.

You can still buy the player out. They can still waive ntc or nmc.

 

[Em etah Eh]

Because Pietrangelo wanted a full NMC (like he got in Vegas). That means we can not trade him at any point of the 8 years he would have signed for. 8 million on the books for 8 years without being able to offload that greatly hinders the teams ability to maneuver the cap and remain competitive. I am pretty sure that both Krug and Faulk's clauses are modified to loosen at some point.

Petro shouldn’t have to be traded. He’s earned that right from this team. If you think F&K are going to have any takers for free then I don’t know what else to say. The 6.5x7 has already taken them off the market. We are stuck with them, just like we’d be stuck with Petro. I’d much rather be stuck with Petro.

 

[WATTAGE4451]

Because Pietrangelo wanted a full NMC (like he got in Vegas). That means we can not trade him at any point of the 8 years he would have signed for. 8 million on the books for 8 years without being able to offload that greatly hinders the teams ability to maneuver the cap and remain competitive. I am pretty sure that both Krug and Faulk's clauses are modified to loosen at some point.

These clauses aremt always that significant.
If petro ages fine and still plays at an elite level, then why would we want to trade him?

If he doesnt age well and becomes a bad contract, why would another team want to take him in a trade and suffer that cap hit anyway even if we wanted to offload him? How many takers did vegas find for fleurys contract without giving up assets to offload it?

Basically if we go into full rebuild mode and he still is playing at great level and we want to flip him for assets is only scenario where its that relevant.

 

[Xerloris]

Can you guys imagine where we would be right now if Lehtera or Berglund had a NMC?

 

[Mike Liut]

Can you guys imagine where we would be right now if Lehtera or Berglund had a NMC?

And Sobotka who turned into a non physical player

 

[pdavemoney]

Can you guys imagine where we would be right now if Lehtera or Berglund had a NMC?

In what fantasy world would Lehtera or Berglund be offered NMC? Pietrangelo is deserving of exceptional treatment, due to being an exceptional player.
Obviously it's all opinions at this point and only time will tell, but I see Petro's game aging well and worth the risk, and would for sure lay money on him being better now, 3 years from now and 6 years from now than either of Faulk or Krug.
With that being said, maybe Parayko can take another step, Faulk settles in to a more comfortable role and we can shelter Krug and get him plenty of offensive opportunities on the back end. Here's to hoping!

 

[Vektor]

These clauses aremt always that significant.
If petro ages fine and still plays at an elite level, then why would we want to trade him?

If he doesnt age well and becomes a bad contract, why would another team want to take him in a trade and suffer that cap hit anyway even if we wanted to offload him? How many takers did vegas find for fleurys contract without giving up assets to offload it?

Basically if we go into full rebuild mode and he still is playing at great level and we want to flip him for assets is only scenario where its that relevant.

Teams accept them all the time at retained numbers. Cap dumps happen multiple times every year.

 

[BlueDream]

NMCs don’t make any sense at all.

Give out a full NTC, fine. But Armstrong is right about NMCs giving the player too much power. If a player ever declined and became bad enough that they need to be waived or something, then they don’t deserve to be completely protected from that.

 

[Em etah Eh]

NMCs don’t make any sense at all.

Give out a full NTC, fine. But Armstrong is right about NMCs giving the player too much power. If a player ever declined and became bad enough that they need to be waived or something, then they don’t deserve to be completely protected from that.

well they exist and the top tier free agents are going to get them. I’ll look forward to over paying the 3rd and 4th tier guys in UFA now that we know how we operate..

 

[pdavemoney]

NMCs don’t make any sense at all.

Give out a full NTC, fine. But Armstrong is right about NMCs giving the player too much power. If a player ever declined and became bad enough that they need to be waived or something, then they don’t deserve to be completely protected from that.

I can actually agree with this. If DA has a stance, we cant hate on him for not breaking it, and I somewhat even admire the conviction. I just wish he would have made an exception in this case, because I just dont see Pietrangelo falling off a cliff and making this contract some albatross dragging us into bottom feeder territory 5 years from now. But what I see for sure happening right this very next year, is us being a worse team on paper.

 

[pdavemoney]

well they exist and the top tier free agents are going to get them. I’ll look forward to over paying the 3rd and 4th tier guys in UFA now that we know how we operate..

If we cant keep our homegrown franchise player who by all accounts wanted to stay here, you're probably right unfortunately.

 

[mike1320]

who by all accounts wanted to stay here

except for the fact that he had a plane ready to swoop him out to Vegas before Army ever signed Krug, and reports coming out saying the he and his agent weren't willing to budge whatsoever with their demands.

 

[EastonBlues22]

NMCs don’t make any sense at all.

Give out a full NTC, fine. But Armstrong is right about NMCs giving the player too much power. If a player ever declined and became bad enough that they need to be waived or something, then they don’t deserve to be completely protected from that.

It's basically a power shift reversal from the first (and most productive) half of a player's career.

Player has zero say in who drafts his rights, and almost no bargaining power until whenever the team decides to offer a contract that buys out some UFA years. The only leverage the players has is to refuse to play...which is really no leverage at all, because he has a finite number of years as an athlete to make money, and wasting them hurts himself more than anyone, thus the majority of the risk falls on them. Teams have basically total control over every player that comes into the league for the best years of their career, and teams can dump said players at any point if they aren't happy with the players having no control over the situation.

Flip to the back half of a player's career, and a select few have enough talent and accomplishments to ask for a full NTC and expect to receive one from somebody on the open market. Not most players. Very, very few. And nobody is forcing any team to give it if they don't want...but they aren't going to be getting those elite players if they don't take that risk (assuming that clause is important to the player).

I have zero sympathy for management here. They have a sweet deal, and they know it. At some point they should be expected to shoulder some risks in a free market setting, and at some point players should actually have most or all of a say in where they play out the twilight of their career.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

It's basically a power shift reversal from the first (and most productive) half of a player's career.

Player has zero say in who drafts his rights, and almost no bargaining power until whenever the team decides to offer a contract that buys out some UFA years. The only leverage the players has is to refuse to play...which is really no leverage at all, because he has a finite number of years as an athlete to make money, and wasting them hurts himself more than anyone, thus the majority of the risk falls on them. Teams have basically total control over every player that comes into the league for the best years of their career, and teams can dump said players at any point if they aren't happy with the players having no control over the situation.

Flip to the back half of a player's career, and a select few have enough talent and accomplishments to ask for a full NTC and expect to receive one from somebody on the open market. Not most players. Very, very few. And nobody is forcing any team to give it if they don't want...but they aren't going to be getting those elite players if they don't take that risk (assuming that clause is important to the player).

I have zero sympathy for management here. They have a sweet deal, and they know it. At some point they should be expected to shoulder some risks in a free market setting, and at some point players should actually have most or all of a say in where they play out the twilight of their career.

He sure showed us. Wanted to stay in St Louis so much he signed in Vegas.

 

[pdavemoney]

except for the fact that he had a plane ready to swoop him out to Vegas before Army ever signed Krug, and reports coming out saying the he and his agent weren't willing to budge whatsoever with their demands.

All things being equal he wanted to stay here, of course. Meaning if contracts are identical, hes going to accept the Blues offer. I didnt realize I would have to point that out, it's kinda implied. Also, if 8 x 8 was on the table, and all it took was a full NMC to stay as I've also heard, then he was willing to concede money as well.
Just because he wants to stay doesn't mean he's going to take a way lesser deal...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's basically a power shift reversal from the first (and most productive) half of a player's career.

Player has zero say in who drafts his rights, and almost no bargaining power until whenever the team decides to offer a contract that buys out some UFA years. The only leverage the players has is to refuse to play...which is really no leverage at all, because he has a finite number of years as an athlete to make money, and wasting them hurts himself more than anyone, thus the majority of the risk falls on them. Teams have basically total control over every player that comes into the league for the best years of their career, and teams can dump said players at any point if they aren't happy with the players having no control over the situation.

Flip to the back half of a player's career, and a select few have enough talent and accomplishments to ask for a full NTC and expect to receive one from somebody on the open market. Not most players. Very, very few. And nobody is forcing any team to give it if they don't want...but they aren't going to be getting those elite players if they don't take that risk (assuming that clause is important to the player).

I have zero sympathy for management here. They have a sweet deal, and they know it. At some point they should be expected to shoulder some risks in a free market setting, and at some point players should actually have most or all of a say in where they play out the twilight of their career.

Nitpick: a player first gains any kind of real leverage when they have the ability to file for arbitration. (They purportedly have it once they are RFA and can talk to other teams, but since other teams very rarely lob an offer sheet, that leverage is practically useless for the vast, vast majority of RFAs.) Even then, it's really arguing over $ and the player is rolling the dice that what they think they're worth will be more accepted by an arbitrator than what the team thinks he's worth. And, there's rolling the dice that what gets said in an arbitration hearing doesn't create ill will between the two sides - or, the team being so mean that the player goes Tommy Salo during the hearing.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with all of this.

 

[mike1320]

All things being equal he wanted to stay here, of course. Meaning if contracts are identical, hes going to accept the Blues offer. I didnt realize I would have to point that out, it's kinda implied. Also, if 8 x 8 was on the table, and all it took was a full NMC to stay as I've also heard, then he was willing to concede money as well.
Just because he wants to stay doesn't mean he's going to take a way lesser deal...

And Army offered a modified NMC, so he was willing to budge as well. Bad optics on Petro's part to have a plane lined up and ready to go Vegas within the first 24 hours of free agency.