Jun 7, 2018
St. Louis Blues
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>STLBlues17</b></div><div>I actually like Bortuzzo, he just needs a partner who can skate and pass up ice like Dunn has for him the past three years. He’s rarely out of position and is one of the rare physical defenseman who actually get defensive results. I imagine Perunovich and him would make a nice little 3rd pair for 13/14 minutes a night. Faulk sucks though and it’s not like he didn’t suck before coming here either. I’m gonna need the Blues to spoon feed him pp1 minutes next year so he gets 40+ points and looks appealing for Seattle.</div></div>
I like Bortuzzo too, I think he's good defensively and very good on the PK, and I think the team is better for him being apart of it. I guess it really all comes down to how much you play him. If Pietrangelo and Parayko both play 24 minutes a night, well, giving Bortuzzo twelve probably isn't the worst thing, as long as it's the right twelve minutes. I was really hoping Mitch Reinke would take another step this year and be able to fill that third pairing role though. Seems like the injury slowed him down after his monster last season though.
Yeah Faulk is bad. I think we've talked about this before, but he's the kind of player who looks great on bad teams, and he did for many years, but it's not a surprise that he's underperformed on good teams. It's crazy that we acquired him and the whole idea was that he would help our (at the time very bad) pp a ton, and people still say he's so good on the pp, even though he's...not playing on our pp anymore, and hasn't since January. I really wonder how we're going to wrangle out of it if we keep Pietrangelo without having to pay big money. RHD are always in demand but man that contract is rough.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>A_K</b></div><div>You would <em>guarantee</em> that next year's cap will be lower than this year's? Where are you getting this from? It will be lower than their original projections (84-88m) but I can't see them taking it down from 81.5, and if they do there would be some other compliance maneuvers allowed. I was guessing that next year will be about 82m and 2021-22 would be around 84-85m.</div></div>
It's definitely not a guarantee, but it's more likely than people seem to want to admit. A guy in a Tampa thread jumped down my throat when I mentioned it as a possibility.
You probably know this already, but for people who don't, the cap numbers is based off of a formula- it's a 50/50 revenue split between players and owners, so the average cap number comes in at half the revenue divided by 31, and then there's a percentage that dictates the floor and the ceiling. The players can use a cap escalator if they want, but they usually don't because they could lose money in that scenario if the revenue for the following season isn't as high as they think it will be.
Even if there are playoffs, the ramifications of losing approximately 150 regular season games in a league that profits largely via gate revenue (unlike the other leagues with lucrative TV and marketing deals) is going to be tough to swallow for teams that are barely profitable as it is. With the revenue being a 50-50 split for owners and players, I think it's almost a certainty that based on the CBA's formula alone, the cap is going down this year. I think it's unlikely that they USE said formula this year, especially if there aren't playoffs, because that devastates pretty much all teams, so they'll have to agree on another number. However, any number higher than the CBA formula's number means the owners will be ceding more money to the players than the owners themselves will be getting. Call me a pessimist, but I'm not holding my breath that the guys who are barely paying their arena workers right now(and not all of them are doing that) are going to be raring to give up more money to the players after they shut down the league twice in the last twenty years over pretty much this exact argument.
I think your projection of a flat cap this year and then going up to 84 million next year is realistic. Hopefully the economy recovers enough that the league doesn't lose money next year.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JTBF81</b></div><div>I never said you were one of those ppl that are assuming they are gone, just that basically every Tampa and any other thread lately mentioning them is assuming it. I am a realist but also an optimist and therefore will not accept that this year is lost when there is plenty of time and plenty of options still being discussed to save it. I know the virus situation all too well living in a state(and country for that matter) with incompetent leadership and management of the virus. That coupled with me having an underlying health problem and having quite a few work friends/colleagues in similar situations has also reinforced the serious nature of the virus. I don't need to adapt my opinion to yours, it is my opinion. I do believe the cap could stay flat with a cbo in place, but do not believe it will go down(and even if it does, not by much). Bettman may have said that, but he is not the only voice dictating things right now. While sure it is possible the NHL takes that route, I believe at least some form of playoffs will occur.</div></div>
Then I really don't understand why you brought up all this stuff about Tampa being gutted and then being bad, because that was never apart of this conversation.
It's not about adapting your opinion to mine, it's adapting your opinion to the information available to you, it's about keeping your opinion informed. So you're willing to believe Bill Daley unabashedly when he spouts off some numbers that were no guarantee even before COVID but when Bettman, who outranks Daley, comes out with a clear direction for the league's plan, suddenly "he's not the only one dictating things right now"? I mean, you're right, he's not, but neither is Bill Daley with the salary cap thing, so why do you not discount that either?
Even if some form of playoffs do happen, all of the same problems with public health and the economy still stand. People may have less money to spend on playoff tickets or people may still be worried about the virus even if the pandemic has passed, and choose not to go. All of those things could lead to demand for the playoffs being less and those events bringing in less money than expected. Especially if they go with a neutral location, like the report that came out today implied. So the cap staying flat or going up is almost certainly going to come down to the generosity of the owners. I'm not an optimist (I think that much is clear at this point), but I think even optimists would be hard pressed to think that some of the most greedy people in the world are going to agree to spend more money when they don't have to.
I think the most likely scenario is that the cap stays flat and there's probably no buyouts. And I think if the cap does go down they will allow CBOs or institute some sort of salary rollback. But this whole thing was never about the cap staying flat or going down. My original comment was in response to that you're sticking with an $84 million cap number, and I just don't see how the NHL can justify any raising of the cap at this point.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JTBF81</b></div><div>It's fine, believe what you want, 84 to 88 was what was said by the NHL for next year's cap. It wasn't confirmed of course but it's the only hard #'s that have been posted. I grasp the situation just fine thanks, yes the cap situation is different now than a few weeks ago but 1. The season can still be finished(at least an expanded or regular playoffs) and 2. nothing but ppl spouting the cba and assuming the cap is plummeting has been posted, and not even by credible members of the league. The regular season games may or may not be played but the league has already asked teams about arena availability well into July so the plan is still very much to finish this season. The draft and free agency have already been postponed, if the start of next season has to be delayed a handful of weeks(which I doubt) then so be it. Better to finish this season and sacrifice a few games from a whole new season rather than just scrap this season entirely. The cap could stay flat but the league will not have it go down as they know that many teams, not just Tampa, are tight with the cap and in order to be as balanced as possi le would either provide a cbo or some other means of cap relief. In either case, my original point stands, Tampa won't be getting gutted and losing all of these players that so many ppl that don't know Tampa and how they get things done assume will happen. Tampa has guys that buy in to the team's structure and philosophy, not ridiculously overpaid contracts that put them in cap hell. Tampa trades Killorn, uses the compliance buy out on one of Gourde or TJ and makes one more small move at that point and the rfa's remain very much with Tampa. Tampa will be a top 5 team for several more years with smart cap management and good trades. I do find it pretty funny though seeing all these fans of other teams thinking Tampa is losing such and such to OS for sure and will be a terrible team now lol.</div></div>
Ah yes, because I definitely said Tampa was losing people this off season and will be a terrible team now...? What? Someone likes to project a bit I think. I barely even mentioned Tampa in my original comment. All I was saying is that it is likely that the cap will stay flat, POSSIBLY even go down (and there's historical precedent for the cap going down in seasons when revenue was lost, regardless of how much you want stick your fingers in your ears and deny it) just to temper your expectations. But there is no way that it will go to 84 million now. And since you seem to think that will still happen at some point, I tend to stand by my thought that you don't fully grasp how difficult it will be to come up with that number for the cap.
You talk about credible sources, and to be fair to you, yes, Bill Daley, who gave that $84-88 million range, is a more credible source than, idk, Darren Dreger or something, but don't you think that maybe circumstances have changed a bit since he made that announcement with this whole, uh, pandemic? Like, credible sources or not, there is no reason to believe that the cap will be what you say when you're entire belief is based on an announcement that happened before it was ever a thought that the league might miss out on a billion dollars. If GMs conducted business during this shutdown planning on an $84 million cap, we'd be calling them irresponsible and we'd be right.
The cap going down does not necessarily mean there's a nuclear situation that you (incorrectly) think I was describing where every team has to trade away S10million in cap space to other teams, they'll offer CBOs and such, and if the cap goes down too much owners will have to use them, even if they don't have the money. If the cap goes down they should 100% offer CBOs, my point with that though is that that might not help Tampa as much as you think, if they still have to trade someone after their CBO to make the cap work and keep their guys, which is also possible. With CBOs, there will be a bunch of good players who were simply casuality of the CBOs that will have gotten their money, and now just need a spot to play, meaning they will sign on the cheap, like Shattenkirk did last summer. Why would teams give up assets to take a Tampa player if there's a ton of good, cheap free agents that they can get for nothing?
CBOs aren't the only option, the NHL could even go as far as roll back player salary evenly. There's ways around it, and yes these teams won't be gutted (which I never said would happen) but it's definitely, 100% possible that the cap goes down. We can debate on how likely it is (and I think it's decently likely), but that it's a possibility is not an argument.
Honestly, I don't even care about the cap number at this point, I'm more baffled by your inability to adapt your opinion to the reality, which is that there is no real end in sight for bringing back the league and every day it goes on it gets more and more unlikely that it will come back for this season. Gary Bettman (let me know if he isn't credible enough!) has said multiple times since the league shut down that the NHL's primary objective is to preserve next season over finishing this one, so this whole idea about swapping a few games out of next season to make up for this one is a non starter. That's directly from the commissioner, just playing by your rules here. And I actually agree with you, that it's better to finish the season at the expense of a delayed next season, even if that means the Stanley Cup is awarded on Christmas Day, but the NHL is incompetent and won't do that. Like, come on man, you gotta be able to adjust your viewpoint based on what the world is telling you, not just what you want to happen, especially for things that actually matter (ie, not the 2020-21 salary cap).
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JTBF81</b></div><div>There's been nothing but baseless speculation that the cap is going down or staying the same. All these ppl saying it's a definite are just assuming. It may stay flat or go up to less than 84 but it won't be coming down. The season could still be completed and it's not like the whole season or even half was lost, if the reg season games aren't completed it was like 12-15%. If the cap does stay flat than a compliance buy out bbn is also very much anticipated so teams in tougher cap spots will also be fine. I still believe in a 84 million cap until further notice, and set Tampa's or anyone else's lineup accordingly.</div></div>
Dude, the whole concept of an 84 million cap was speculation to begin with. That's not a confirmed number, that's just what they thought. It was based on revenue that they are now not getting. But even before that it was a meaningless number- they said it would be 84 last year, and it ended up being 81.5. Now they're saying it will 84 this year, and they're playing ten less games per team and missing the most profitable portion. There's nothing baseless about predicting the cap will go down- there is a formula for the cap: league revenue is split evenly 50/50 between players and owners, which sets a midpoint, and then there's a fixed percentage on either side of that midpoint to set the floor and ceiling. Most teams end up spending to the ceiling, which is why this is a problem. If the midpoint goes down, so does the ceiling. That's outlined in the CBA, which is on this website in full, look it up. There's no disputing that the cap is going down, because the NHL is losing revenue they thought they would get. That's objective fact. The question is whether, considering the circumstances, they'll agree on a different number, arbitrary of the cap formula, but that would require the owners to agree to not split revenue 50/50 and cede more to the players. And then you remember that this is also the league that decided to not play most or all of a season twice over pretty much this exact issue, and you see why the owners agreeing to that is probably not going to happen.
Compliance buyouts are nice but it still means real money has to be spent, even if it doesn't count against the cap, so owners have to be in a financial position to do that, and not all teams are. That also floods the market with free agents, some of whom will be very good and will sign for cheap (think Kevin Shattenkirk) and that will hurt teams like Tampa who need to trade guys who are already limited by people's contract clauses.
If you believe there's going to be any completion of the season you don't grasp how serious of a situation we're in right now. We'll be lucky if we get playoffs. It won't even be up to the league to decide to complete the season, it will be up to whether the governments will allow mass gatherings. Toronto just banned any public events until June 30th. Other cities will be doing the same, sooner or later. Not until July or August *at best* and then you're cutting into next season too, which means revenue lost in that season, which means you're trading revenue in one cap year for revenue in another, which solves nothing. And that's saying nothing of the economic impact COVID is having. Even if the season does resume, is there going to be the same amount of people who can afford to go to games? Are people going to still be cautious and avoid those public gatherings even if they are permitted to happen- especially if we just suppress an outbreak and not eliminate the virus? There is a ludicriously narrow path to an 84 million cap. I would think a pandemic would be enough further notice.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JTBF81</b></div><div>Agreed, Coleman isn't going anywhere. Killorn Paquette and likely Coburn to be moved. Shattenkirk is likely gone unless he goes very team friendly(not happening) and can see Maroon not returning as well. Too many ?'s right now for any real agm to have weight, as we don't know where the cap will be, if it goes up, stays flat or, unlikely, that it goes down, will there be a compliance buyout option etc. Until any of these are known, I stick with 84 million as that was the # mentioned before this Corona situation began. Tampa will make it work as they always have and keep their rfa's if they want to keep them. Since I believe Serg, Cirelli and Cernak are all a part of the team's current and future plans, and the fact that they all seem very happy to be a part of this organization, it seem more reasonable than not that they will all follow Tampa rfa suit and sign their bridges. After that, they will all get paid nicely on 8 year deals with Tampa, if they want to be with the team at that point. I'm not worried about magical offer sheets that supposedly all teams are going to offer them like candy, as not only are they extremely rare, but none of these players have ever indicated they want out of Tampa bc of $. Tampa will be fine, JBB is a cap specialist and it's not like this off seasons situation has just suddenly been sprung on him. He has been preparing for it for awhile now and no doubt he has a plan to keep the guys they need to keep.</div></div>
There's a lot of questions, but whether or not the salary cap goes up to 84 million isn't one of them. It's not. At best it is staying flat, maybe even goes down. Really depends on whether or not playoffs happen, which I would put at unlikely, but even then, most of the teams missed five to seven home games, the NHL is a gate revenue league, and the cap is directly tied to revenue. A true salary cap for this year will probably come in at the ~60 million mark. They probably won't let that happen and will artificially set it because that murders every single team, even Ottawa, but I can't see them justifying a raise then either, because most NHL teams border on the brink of profitability anyway (including the Bolts!) and don't have the money unless they have benevolent owners. And considering how long it took everyone to pay their arena workers (and some who still aren't), not sure the owners are in a benevolent mood.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ek_65</b></div><div>Faulk has that NTC though, wonder if he considers waiving it if he feels he's being blocked by Parayoko and Pietrangelo next year. Never understood the move but it seemed like they were thinking Pietrangelo wasn't gonna be there long term. Faulk signs the extension immediately, and has a rough season. Pietrangelo remans unsigned, has a fantastic season. Agreed, Blues need to find a way to keep him.</div></div>
Yeah, it's tough. I think it was partly insurance against Pietrangelo leaving and partially just a general upgrading of the defense with Edmundson, Bouwmeester, and Gunnarsson more or less all on their way out. I think the only way we get a move out of him is if he gets claimed by Seattle. We might have to give Seattle a bit to even take him.
I think anyone who knew anything about Justin Faulk from his Carolina days should have been able to see that he wasn't going to be worth that contract, but here we are. He's got a reputation as an offensive defenseman from his years of being on a bad team with no skilled forwards, where he took a lot of shots from way out and a comparatively very few went in. If Parayko shot at the rate Faulk shoots, he'd have like twenty five goals. Unfortunately, a guy who doesn't really have that great of an offensive sense taking that many shots from far out on a good team is just giving up possession a lot at best, at worst taking away shots from forwards who are more skilled offensively and are also closer to the net. Not a surprise that as soon as Carolina gets good they don't need him anymore. He's a third pairing defenseman on any good team. That's where he's played his best hockey for us this year.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>aadoyle</b></div><div>well all i can say is this good luck with him cause if he ages poorly as most defense do after 30 that contract could end up being a handicap. Most cup teams who try and keep the core together have learned keeping the the star players is not a good idea for long term success. Sure the blues are strong but with that aging core how long will that last who knows.
As for the 3 offers that was just the short form it was on one of the hockey night in Canada talks where discussed his party receiving 3 offers from armstrong which he did not agree to.</div></div>
The Blues I think are in a similar position as Philly where they basically have two cores though. We've got an "older" core of Schwartz, Schenn, Tarasenko, Perron, Pietrangelo, O'Reilly as well as a younger core of Thomas, Dunn, Parayko, Kyrou, Sanford, and Binnington. Could even throw guys like Blais, Kostin, and Perunovich in there though I think they've still got a lot to prove yet. Obviously you can't keep all of those guys long term, but the Blues are set for a long time to stay competitive. But, certain guys you just got to keep even if they're older, and your defenseman who averages 24 minutes a night is one of them.
See, you say that a lot of defenseman age poorly, and that's true, but the elite ones who rely on skill usually do not. Shea Weber just had an excellent year at 34, Mark Giordano won the Norris last year at 35, Ryan Suter was three points off his career high at 35 when the season stopped. Those guys are all skills based, like Pietrangelo. If Pietrangelo is good for another five years, that's fine, because our team might not even be cup contenders in five years.
Based on his projections, I'm pretty comfortable keeping Pietrangelo long term, and I'm usually a pretty obstinate "do not sign anyone over thirty" guy
<img class="for_img" src="https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2019/12/06023553/Screen-Shot-2019-12-05-at-10.41.26-PM.png" alt="Screen-Shot-2019-12-05-at-10.41.26-PM.png">
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>aadoyle</b></div><div><a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/contract-talks-picking-blues-captain-pietrangelo/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/contract-talks-picking-blues-captain-pietrangelo/</a>
basically they wanted to pay pitrangelo what Oliver Ekman-Larsson is making but talks slowed down by oct, 30. pitrangelo isnt interested in that type of money hes waiting for the end of the season to get as much as he can. If karlsson and doughty can get that money why cant I. The predators got lucky because Josi signed on a discount as he could have commanded way more. We will see what happens in the summer but if pitrangelo wanted to stay a blue he would have signed already. He is probably going to explore the UFA market as there are probably a lot of teams interested in him and willing to spend.</div></div>
That doesn't say anything about the "three times the Blues offered and he rejected all three offers" thing that you said. All it says is they want OEK money, and he wants more than that, which is non-news, like of course he wants more than they want to give him, that's why negotiations exist. Pietrangelo has never been held in the esteem that Doughty or Karlsson have, he's never won a Norris, he's never single-handedly dragged a team to the postseason like Karlsson did with Ottawa, and he's older than either of those guys were when they signed their contracts. There's very little precedent for him to receive a Doughty or Karlsson level contract even if he goes UFA. And also, those contracts are bad! If that's what he really wants than yeah totally let him walk. But, I think there'a actually very few teams that have the space to offer him that level of contract anyway. Everyone is going to be under the gun for the cap this year. The only teams that do have the space are teams that are bad- the Ducks, the Sens, the Devils. And the Predators did not get Josi on a discount, they just paid him for eight years instead of the seven he would have gotten on any other team. 9mil x 8 years = 10.3mil x 7 years on any other team. That's why those guys get more as UFAs, they don't really get more, it's just contract structure.
Pietrangelo not signing yet I don't think is indicative of much, Armstrong has a reputation for playing hardball (which is kinda weird, considering how many bleh contracts he's given out, but that's what the player agent poll said) and so does Newport Sports. They hold out as long as they can to see if the other will blink first, because we're talking about a ton of money here, the biggest contract on the Blues. But I think at the end of the day, what's the motivation for him to leave? You might say money, but it's the same thing with Josi, the Blues can offer him a lower cap hit but have an extra year, so they can offer him pretty much as much money in general (and allow him to play longer) as any other team unless someone offers him Doughty or Karlsson level money, which, is really only what, probably seven million more total, in the grand scheme of things? I mean, that's a lot of money, but not that much when we're talking about an 70 million contract. He's the captain on a team set to contend for the cup for a long time. He married a St. Louis girl. What can he really get somewhere else that he can't get here?
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>aadoyle</b></div><div>He has carried that team for years and has one of the best sv and gaa of current nhl goalies in 2020. He was the starter only till binnington came up. The team has been doing great with both so why risk it. Many teams who have solid goaltending from the main and backup often have great success in the playoffs. the blues have already tried to sign pitrangelo 3 times and hes rejected all 3 offers. He wants a massive payday (possibly doughty money) and being 30 there is a risk his production drops as he gets older or acquires injuries due to his age.</div></div>
I'm sorry, what Blues team did you watch when Allen was the starter? Carried that team for years? The last two years that Allen was the starter (16-17, 17-18), I would say we were good *in spite* of him, not because of him. We missed the playoffs one of those years. Binnington was a career AHL goalie, you don't give a guy like that a shot unless your starter is absolutely terrible, which Allen was last year. Allen's been great this year but his workload has been light. I think he's good enough to be a starter somewhere but it's not here, and you can't justify paying paying starter money to a backup goalie in a cap league. You have to move on, especially with the cap probably not rising or maybe even going down this year. Solid goaltenders are available for much cheaper than him.
Do you have a source for any of that Pietrangelo info? I doubt it because nothing that specific has come out about their negotiations.
Pietrangelo's long term projections are very favorable since he's a skill player like Weber or Thornton and doesn't rely on his physicality (like Doughty) or footspeed (like Karlsson), both of which can diminish with time, in order to play his game. The analytics guru at the Athletic recommended an eight year contract, and the advanced stats guys are always the one saying not to give big money to guys that age.