Blues News Forum

Dave's a mess wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:14 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:49 am

UMSLBlues12 wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:41 am Perhaps the player we haven’t been thinking enough about in Petro speculation is actually Parayko. He’s UFA in two years. Petro’s game has tapered off here lately for whatever reason and Parayko has really been dominant. If you have Parayko as a first pairing guy (assuming he’s playing like he is now) and Faulk on the second pair, how much of a downgrade would it be? (Not advocating for this position, just throwing it out there).

https://theathletic.com/1648699/2020/03 ... ed-article

A big one

Yes. Parayko can do a good job of filling Petro's role, but Faulk hasn't shown he can fill Parayko's. It's going to be a fascinating negotiation in a compressed period since they're not talking until after the playoffs. Here's hoping they only have a couple weeks to figure it out before 7/1.

Pretty much. Also, Parayko doesn't get the luxury anymore of long stretches of ineffectiveness as well as playing against the other teams 2nd best line. You don't take away your Stanley Cup captain and best defensemen and not take a big step back. However, I'm thinking when they traded and locked up Faulk, that was exactly the plan.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:17 am

Dave's a mess wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:14 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:49 am

A big one

Yes. Parayko can do a good job of filling Petro's role, but Faulk hasn't shown he can fill Parayko's. It's going to be a fascinating negotiation in a compressed period since they're not talking until after the playoffs. Here's hoping they only have a couple weeks to figure it out before 7/1.

Pretty much. Also, Parayko doesn't get the luxury anymore of long stretches of ineffectiveness as well as playing against the other teams 2nd best line. You don't take away your Stanley Cup captain and best defensemen and not take a big step back. However, I'm thinking when they traded and locked up Faulk, that was exactly the plan.

I know the points still aren't there for Faulk, but his play has been really good lately IMO.
I looked up his stats and in his last 5 games he is a +5 with 14 hits and 8 blocks. Sometimes players just can't be plugged in and expected to produce right away.
Just for the record, I'm not arguing for or against signing Petro here... just stating some facts about Faulk.

MattyIce wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:30 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:17 am

Dave's a mess wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:14 am

Yes. Parayko can do a good job of filling Petro's role, but Faulk hasn't shown he can fill Parayko's. It's going to be a fascinating negotiation in a compressed period since they're not talking until after the playoffs. Here's hoping they only have a couple weeks to figure it out before 7/1.

Pretty much. Also, Parayko doesn't get the luxury anymore of long stretches of ineffectiveness as well as playing against the other teams 2nd best line. You don't take away your Stanley Cup captain and best defensemen and not take a big step back. However, I'm thinking when they traded and locked up Faulk, that was exactly the plan.

I know the points still aren't there for Faulk, but his play has been really good lately IMO.
I looked up his stats and in his last 5 games he is a +5 with 14 hits and 8 blocks. Sometimes players just can't be plugged in and expected to produce right away.
Just for the record, I'm not arguing for or against signing Petro here... just stating some facts about Faulk.

Sure, his play has improved in his reduced role. He led the team in hits yesterday. However, he still has 3 whole points in 2020 and we are in March. Also, his plus 5 rating came in a two game stretch. Not exactly something I feel comfortable losing Petro for. This teams depth at forward and defense in their strength.

Armstrong had to have a backup plan because I think the chances of Petro signing here without testing the market are about 0.001%.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:49 am

UMSLBlues12 wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:41 am Perhaps the player we haven’t been thinking enough about in Petro speculation is actually Parayko. He’s UFA in two years. Petro’s game has tapered off here lately for whatever reason and Parayko has really been dominant. If you have Parayko as a first pairing guy (assuming he’s playing like he is now) and Faulk on the second pair, how much of a downgrade would it be? (Not advocating for this position, just throwing it out there).

https://theathletic.com/1648699/2020/03 ... ed-article

A big one

Its probably the difference between being a Stanley Cup contender the next few years and just being a good playoff team, I'd say.

The current cap is 81.5. This is good news for the Blues in they will have the space to sign Petro, could be bad news in that another team may back up the brinks truck.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:53 am The current cap is 81.5. This is good news for the Blues in they will have the space to sign Petro, could be bad news in that another team may back up the brinks truck.

Petro makes $6.5 now. Even the low end there its a $2.5M increase in the cap. If all of that goes to Petro thats enough for a $9M a year deal. I still think he gets less than that from us though...since he can get 8 years from us, a lower AAV over 8 years is more total $$$ for him than a higher AAV over 7 years from another team.

IE, Petro signs 7 years, $66.5M elsewhere (9.5M AAV)

or

Petro signs with the Blues for 8 years, $70M here ($8.75 AAV).

Better for our cap AND more cash for him; unless some team gets really crazy with an offer ($10M plus), it seems like he'd be more inclined to stay put for both the financial reasons and all of the other assorted things about staying in STL.

I can see another club making an offer in the 10 mill aav or better.

Food for thought. There are 18 defensemen with 40 or more points so far this year. 2 are 33 years old or more. Petro is 30.

I'm not saying I wouldn't sign him, I'm just saying...

Dave's a mess wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:38 am Food for thought. There are 18 defensemen with 40 or more points so far this year. 2 are 33 years old or more. Petro is 30.

I'm not saying I wouldn't sign him, I'm just saying...

I'm not sure what you're saying. He's the same age as Josi, Hedman, and Carlson. Would you be hesitant to lock any of them up for 8 years?

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:53 am The current cap is 81.5. This is good news for the Blues in they will have the space to sign Petro, could be bad news in that another team may back up the brinks truck.

An interesting wrinkle added by Lebrun...

Any quotes from Army about the Petro contract situation?

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:35 am

MattyIce wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:30 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:17 am

Pretty much. Also, Parayko doesn't get the luxury anymore of long stretches of ineffectiveness as well as playing against the other teams 2nd best line. You don't take away your Stanley Cup captain and best defensemen and not take a big step back. However, I'm thinking when they traded and locked up Faulk, that was exactly the plan.

I know the points still aren't there for Faulk, but his play has been really good lately IMO.
I looked up his stats and in his last 5 games he is a +5 with 14 hits and 8 blocks. Sometimes players just can't be plugged in and expected to produce right away.
Just for the record, I'm not arguing for or against signing Petro here... just stating some facts about Faulk.

Sure, his play has improved in his reduced role. He led the team in hits yesterday. However, he still has 3 whole points in 2020 and we are in March. Also, his plus 5 rating came in a two game stretch. Not exactly something I feel comfortable losing Petro for. This teams depth at forward and defense in their strength.

Faulk averages the 5th most ice time on the team over 20 mins per game and that has been consistent, so I wouldn't say his role is reduced necessarily.
I agree with the depth comment for sure. I would love for him to be on this team long term. But 8 years is a loooong time. Kind of scary when you look at the salary cap mess that Chicago is in. The longer this goes, the more I feel like they may let him walk. Feels a lot like the Backes situation.

I'm not sure if the shithawks look back on the long term contracts they handed out like Halloween candy with such excited glee right now.

It's a tough call. Do you want to potentially turn into the Kings, or do you late Petro walk and continue streamlining this team in both a win now mode and future mode. I do like the more tough minded Petro now, he's been great with Berube. The old Petro can take a hike. The new Petro is great. This is all Army's decision and I can't complain with whatever he decides.

I just not one to look at a guy whose 30 and say hes gonna be worth this much money in 8 yrs. Jesus, that almost a decade. And how many star yunguns is Army willing to let slip away cuz the piggy banks empty 5 or 6 yrs down the road.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:48 am

Dave's a mess wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:38 am Food for thought. There are 18 defensemen with 40 or more points so far this year. 2 are 33 years old or more. Petro is 30.

I'm not saying I wouldn't sign him, I'm just saying...

I'm not sure what you're saying. He's the same age as Josi, Hedman, and Carlson. Would you be hesitant to lock any of them up for 8 years?

It depends on what my long term goals are. The Blues window is wide open now, so I'd be much more willing to eat some bad years down the road. To keep the current core intact. I think most would agree that if you sign Petro for 8 years, the last few years are going to look pretty rough. What I was suggesting is that there is evidence that the rough years might start sooner than you'd expect. Player comps are never apples to apples, but there aren't a lot of older defensemen that are producing much offense. It's also worth noting, with all the applicable caveats about the value of +/-, that the 2 players I alluded to before (Suter and Burns) are a combined -26 this year.

I know it sounds like I'm saying I wouldn't extend him long term, but that's not necessarily what I'd do, I'm just laying out the logic behind that stance. LA, Chicago, San Jose. The examples of signing stars long term around this age backfiring are plentiful. I'd probably sign him to as short of a contract as I can (5-6 if possible), but hey, I get letting him walk if he only wants 7-8 years.

BlueinNy wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 11:46 am I just not one to look at a guy whose 30 and say hes gonna be worth this much money in 8 yrs. Jesus, that almost a decade. And how many star yunguns is Army willing to let slip away cuz the piggy banks empty 5 or 6 yrs down the road.

Contracts are constantly going up. In 7-8 years, a 9 million deal won’t be considered top of the market.

I think he might still be a productive player in 8 years. Certainly not worth what he will be getting but it won't be a complete waste.

He's gonna need the money for those triplets.

BluesSK wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:18 pm I think he might still be a productive player in 8 years. Certainly not worth what he will be getting but it won't be a complete waste.

He's gonna need the money for those triplets.

If we sign him, I truly hope the cap goes up to mask the hurt of 8-10 mil per year for 8.

Cotton McKnight wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:38 pm

BluesSK wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:18 pm I think he might still be a productive player in 8 years. Certainly not worth what he will be getting but it won't be a complete waste.

He's gonna need the money for those triplets.

If we sign him, I truly hope the cap goes up to mask the hurt of 8-10 mil per year for 8.

The cap will keep going up exponentially. Pietrangelo may even ask for a re-negotiation for another extension because his pay in the later years will be so far under that for players even playing at his declining level. The Blues can sign him at $10 million per year and not suffer. They'd better not let him walk.

Cotton McKnight wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:38 pm

BluesSK wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:18 pm I think he might still be a productive player in 8 years. Certainly not worth what he will be getting but it won't be a complete waste.

He's gonna need the money for those triplets.

If we sign him, I truly hope the cap goes up to mask the hurt of 8-10 mil per year for 8.

The cap will keep going up exponentially. Pietrangelo may even ask for a re-negotiation for another extension because his pay in the later years will be so far under that for players even playing at his declining level. The Blues can sign him at $10 million per year and not suffer. They'd better not let him walk.

Robb_K wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:12 pm

Cotton McKnight wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:38 pm

BluesSK wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:18 pm I think he might still be a productive player in 8 years. Certainly not worth what he will be getting but it won't be a complete waste.

He's gonna need the money for those triplets.

If we sign him, I truly hope the cap goes up to mask the hurt of 8-10 mil per year for 8.

The cap will keep going up exponentially. Pietrangelo may even ask for a re-negotiation for another extension because his pay in the later years will be so far under that for players even playing at his declining level. The Blues can sign him at $10 million per year and not suffer. They'd better not let him walk.

Sure, there will be loads more cap space overall in years down the road, but not next year. Next year the Cap is supposed to be somewhere between 84-88 million. If its at the lower end, they'll have about $10.5 mill in space to sign Petro, Blais and Dunn, plus Mac and DLR. You've also got to figure out what to do with another D spot since Scandella will be a UFA. The real reason you'd sign him for 8 years isn't so you can have him in 2028, but so his cap hit will be lower in 2021.

I'm sure Army could sign Petro and all those RFAs, and maybe even Scandella, but not without saying goodbye to some other familiar faces.

Only 1 man knows where this is going & what the plans are for this organization............................

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:44 pm

BlueinNy wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 11:46 am I just not one to look at a guy whose 30 and say hes gonna be worth this much money in 8 yrs. Jesus, that almost a decade. And how many star yunguns is Army willing to let slip away cuz the piggy banks empty 5 or 6 yrs down the road.

Contracts are constantly going up. In 7-8 years, a 9 million deal won’t be considered top of the market.

So you are saying Faulk is a bargain then?