[Rumour] Alex Pietrangelo to test free agency

[BPA]

The Blues have broken off contract talks with the pending unrestricted free-agent rearguard and have advised the 30-year-old to pursue free agency in October, TSN's Darren Dreger reports

[gizmo2337]

I'd take a hard pass. He's north of 30yr and in decline. I could see him going to the Avs.

 

I think we can find someone younger, cheaper,  who isn't in decline.

[aGENT]

40 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Trade for the rights to negotiate with Piet first.  Then work on a finalized number and term with him pending the trade of LE.  Move LE along with whatever sweetener it takes (ie. Virtanen++) and then sign Pietrangelo to a deal.

 

The end result is:

In:

Pietrangelo

 

Out:

LE

Virtanen

Prospect?

2nd round pick?

 

That's a trade off I'd take 10 times out of 10.

Assuming we don't plan on having him back, Stecher's rights for AP's...? Who says no?

[HKSR]

18 minutes ago, gizmo2337 said:

I'd take a hard pass. He's north of 30yr and in decline. I could see him going to the Avs.

 

I think we can find someone younger, cheaper,  who isn't in decline.

Honest question, but who brings what Pietrangelo brings without having to give up assets other than cash?

[Provost]

13 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Honest question, but who brings what Pietrangelo brings without having to give up assets other than cash?

Cash (cap space) is very valuable... more so over the next 3-5 years then ever.  An anchor of a declining guy in 3 years with 3+ years remaining would be really problematic for us in years we want to be adding pieces and contending.

There are a bunch of younger D purportedly available (for a price).  I take Ristolainen, Cernak, Philipe Myers, Dumba, Ekblad, Deangelo, etc. even at a cost in trade instead of taking on a bad cap liability.

A guy like Cernak could be had for an offer sheet Tampa couldn't match... and the compensation is only a 2nd round pick for a $4 million salary and has a ton of upside still.

Pietrangelo will turn 31 just as he plays his first games for his new team.  I think we can all agree that his cap hit is going to be north of $7 million, maybe even north of $8 million if he is going to UFA and chasing a final contract with several suitors.  Not a lot of over defencemen merit top pairing dollars into their mid to late 30's, there are a few... but they are exceptions.  This is going to be a high danger signing and needs to be by a team that is willing to sacrifice future risk for success in the next 1-3 years.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Provost

[D-Money]

1 hour ago, mll said:

They are not retaining Krug because he's going to price himself out of their salary structure.  Wouldn't it be the same issue with Pietrangelo?  

I just think they think Krug is going to get more than he’s worth. If they can upgrade to AP, think they’ll strongly consider it.

 

If you look at their Capfriendly page, they’re well situated for the next few years. And they really should go for it every year, because once Bergeron and Marchand age out, they’ll probably need a rebuild.

[Pears]

4 hours ago, mll said:

Lawson Crouse was an 11th overall - 14 months after drafting him Florida used him to dump the Bolland contract to Arizona.  He wasn't on LTIR yet.  

 

 

Crouse wasn’t anywhere close to being as good of a player that Podkolzin and Hoglander already are. 

[mll]

11 minutes ago, Pears said:

Crouse wasn’t anywhere close to being as good of a player that Podkolzin and Hoglander already are. 

In hindsight sure.  But not at the moment of the trade.  The trade took place in August 2016 and he was drafted in 2015.   He was taken 11th overall ahead of Barzal, Connor, Chabot, Boeser, Konecny.  

 

Florida traded Crouse to the Coyotes last summer as part of a salary cap dump; Arizona took on the final three years and $16.5-million of Dave Bolland’s contract in exchange for a top prospect — in this case, Crouse.

“We got criticized for giving up on a great young prospect but we had to,” Rowe said. “That contract was strangling us, cap-wise. …

“When we traded him, our scouts were furious. I’m not going to lie. But we had to do something and that was trade Lawson. I’m sure, to this day, he’s still sour about it.”

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by mll

[peaches5]

7 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I'd actually look at trading Edler for picks over dropping Tanev. Edler is dispensable in my opinion, Tanev is not. 

This is one of the stupidest things I've read on CDC. Edler is by far our best dman. He is way more valuable to our team than Tanev and not only that he has a NMC and he signed contract to prevent him from going to Seattle yet you think he is going to waive this NMC for picks? When he wouldn't even waive his NTC a few years ago when many teams wanted him? What you said makes absolutely no sense at all and has no chance of ever happening. You have to have absolutely no knowledge of hockey to say something like you just did.

[peaches5]

52 minutes ago, Provost said:

Cash (cap space) is very valuable... more so over the next 3-5 years then ever.  An anchor of a declining guy in 3 years with 3+ years remaining would be really problematic for us in years we want to be adding pieces and contending.

There are a bunch of younger D purportedly available (for a price).  I take Ristolainen, Cernak, Philipe Myers, Dumba, Ekblad, Deangelo, etc. even at a cost in trade instead of taking on a bad cap liability.

A guy like Cernak could be had for an offer sheet Tampa couldn't match... and the compensation is only a 2nd round pick for a $4 million salary and has a ton of upside still.

Pietrangelo will turn 31 just as he plays his first games for his new team.  I think we can all agree that his cap hit is going to be north of $7 million, maybe even north of $8 million if he is going to UFA and chasing a final contract with several suitors.  Not a lot of over defencemen merit top pairing dollars into their mid to late 30's, there are a few... but they are exceptions.  This is going to be a high danger signing and needs to be by a team that is willing to sacrifice future risk for success in the next 1-3 years.

you are going to get 4-5 years of excellent play from him and the remaining 2-3 will be the cost of doing business. We have Miller for 3 more years so if we win the cap in any of those years who cares. You're not going to win the cup by playing safe. Look at Chicago and LA you have to take a chance.

[oldnews]

42 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Honest question, but who brings what Pietrangelo brings without having to give up assets other than cash?

I don't think anyone can realistically expect to sign Tanev - and Pietrangelo.

And I'd prioritize Tanev of the two - for various reasons - the principal reasons being (the likely) cap hit and length of term.

I think the team showed in the playoffs that the present form of the blueline was far more viable than many people here projected/anticipated.  When it was healthy, it was pretty damn effective, and even in the absence of Myers, it managed to survive a couple fairly good opponents (I think the second round vs St Louis, while they were fairly healthy down the middle, was a good indicator, an impression a lot of people may have lost in the ensuing Vegas series, where still they managed to 'harm-reduce' to the closing minutes of game 7.

 

I don't think an AP addition is realistic - and probably not even adviseable under the circumstances.  AP is closer to 31 than he is to 30 - so realistically any deal would be taking him deep into his 35+ years.   Those are the kinds of deals I'd steer well clear of at this stage - almost regardless of who you are talking about.  Meanwhile, this team has a good measure of depth on the left side (enough that I'd dump Benn without a second thought) - and a viable right side if they manage to re-sign Tanev.

 

I'd also steer well clear of the entire 'second tier' or RHD hitting the free agent market (Tanev aside of course).

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/free-agents/defenseman/ufa/

For me it would be limited to the question of who, if any of them, represent both an upgrade, and a viable/comparable cap hit to Stecher, while bringing the elements people are hoping to see - principally more 'physicality' to the 3rd pairing.  I like Stecher - a lot - I particularly value his mobility - his wisdom/decision-making when it comes to attacking the play/puck - he's very opportune with his decisions about when to be aggressive - he moves the puck well - he's quite durable for his size, he brings a reasonable balance of upside - he's a homegrown talent that elected to sign here - there are a lot of good things to be said about Stecher, so imo it's a fairly complicated question - how easy it is to upgrade on him in an overall sense of the game and cap flexibility, etc.   For me the alternatives would probably be fairly limited to Cernak, Manson, Mayfield, Foote types - with a couple - likely to be in fairly high demand - UFA veteran placeholder options (if they are unable to come to terms with Stecher and/or if those options entertain coming here for reasonable cap and term).

 

I might be assuming that re-signing Tanev is a high probability - and that he is willing/wanting to return - but beyond that, I'd be looking far more closely at altering the nature of the winger group - getting rid of a couple middle six LW would be my priority over trying to big fish the right side of the blueline.

[Provost]

12 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

you are going to get 4-5 years of excellent play from him and the remaining 2-3 will be the cost of doing business. We have Miller for 3 more years so if we win the cap in any of those years who cares. You're not going to win the cup by playing safe. Look at Chicago and LA you have to take a chance.

You "may" get 4-5 years of good play on the outside.  We "probably" won't win the Cup in the next 3 years.  There ARE better options. I think you are conflating being bold with being safe vs being bold and really risky.

You are proposing a "playing it safe" move that is the highest risk possible.  Signing an aging UFA isn't being bold... it is a well worn path that history has shown almost never pays off.  A much bolder move that is taking a chance would be to trade significant assets for a young top D.  That has much more upside and doesn't limit our window to 3 years.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Provost

[peaches5]

Just now, Provost said:

You "may" get 4-5 years of good play on the outside.  We "probably" won't win the Cup in the next 3 years.  There ARE better options. I think you are conflating being bold and being safe.

You are proposing a "playing it safe" move that is the highest risk possible.  Signing an aging UFA isn't being bold... it is a well worn path that history has shown almost never pays off.  A much bolder move that is taking a chance would be to trade significant assets for a young top D.  That has much more upside and doesn't limit our window to 3 years.

When has a number 1 dman that signed with a team at the age of 30 not panned out? What are these young dman that are available? Any good young dman is going to cost a considerable amount of assets. I can't imagine there are any of these guys available that would be worth targeting.

[oldnews]

I think everyone here might be overlooking some real gems at the lower end of the UFA market.....

 

Yannick Weber.  Not good enough for us, but was good enough for Nashville.  Bring YW back!

Luca Sbisa.  Not good enough for CDC, but good enough for Vegas' top 4.  Bring Luca back!!  Physicalities!

 

But kidding aside - aside from the LHD prospects - Juolevi, Rathbone, Brisebois, Sautner - I'm a homer that likes some of the young RHD like Chatfield, Woo and Rafferty (as potentially viable 5 spot RHD next fall).

 

So to add to the Webers and Sbisas, on a more serious note....

 

I might simply look to bring back a guy like Luke Schenn for that 4RHD spot.  He may, like a number of others, find a better opportunity, but....

Or other placeholder - Gudas, DeMelo type that can pk - take some further weight off top 4 RHD when called upon...not sure they need to aim a whole lot higher right now.  They can always wait - and go back to the market later is necessary / don't necessarily have to 'solve' this at this point.

[Junkyard Dog]

IMO a Pietrangelo signing probably shouldn't happen unless Eriksson is moved.

 

Still though could be a ton of cap locked up long term.

 

If he can play like Weber is his later years it could turn out pretty good for whoever signs him.

[Pears]

24 minutes ago, mll said:

In hindsight sure.  But not at the moment of the trade.  The trade took place in August 2016 and he was drafted in 2015.   He was taken 11th overall ahead of Barzal, Connor, Chabot, Boeser, Konecny.  

 

Florida traded Crouse to the Coyotes last summer as part of a salary cap dump; Arizona took on the final three years and $16.5-million of Dave Bolland’s contract in exchange for a top prospect — in this case, Crouse.

“We got criticized for giving up on a great young prospect but we had to,” Rowe said. “That contract was strangling us, cap-wise. …

“When we traded him, our scouts were furious. I’m not going to lie. But we had to do something and that was trade Lawson. I’m sure, to this day, he’s still sour about it.”

 

Just because a player was taken high and above other players who turned out much better, doesn’t mean he should have been picked there. I think of all teams we should know that. 

[Provost]

14 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

When has a number 1 dman that signed with a team at the age of 30 not panned out? What are these young dman that are available? Any good young dman is going to cost a considerable amount of assets. I can't imagine there are any of these guys available that would be worth targeting.

Wait... now you don't want to be bold anymore and want to play it "safe" by not being willing to give up assets for a young D?  I mentioned just a few possibilities in the above post you quoted.  We can also just sign Tanev to a relatively short term deal and then pick up cheaper D just before expansion when the trade market is severely depressed because teams can't protect them.

@oldnews and I can't agree on whether water is wet (for the record, he maintains that it is, in fact dry)... and if both of us agree that signing Pietrangelo is probably a bad idea, that might be worth considering
 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Provost

[Pears]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

I think everyone here might be overlooking some real gems at the lower end of the UFA market.....

 

Yannick Weber.  Not good enough for us, but was good enough for Nashville.  Bring YW back!

Luca Sbisa.  Not good enough for CDC, but good enough for Vegas' top 4.  Bring Luca back!!  Physicalities!

 

But kidding aside - aside from the LHD prospects - Juolevi, Rathbone, Brisebois, Sautner - I'm a homer that likes some of the young RHD like Chatfield, Woo and Rafferty (as potentially viable 5 spot RHD next fall).

 

So to add to the Webers and Sbisas, on a more serious note....

 

I might simply look to bring back a guy like Luke Schenn for that 4RHD spot.  He may, like a number of others, find a better opportunity, but....

Or other placeholder - Gudas, DeMelo type that can pk - take some further weight off top 4 RHD when called upon...not sure they need to aim a whole lot higher right now.  They can always wait - and go back to the market later is necessary / don't necessarily have to 'solve' this at this point.

I’d certainly be interested in a guy like DeMelo if we aren’t able to bring Pietrangelo in. Just have to find one legitimate top 2-4 RD and I think we’d be ready to go. 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, Pears said:

I’d certainly be interested in a guy like DeMelo if we aren’t able to bring Pietrangelo in. Just have to find one legitimate top 2-4 RD and I think we’d be ready to go. 

I'm not looking at DeMelo as a "top 2-4" RD.  I'm looking at him as an affordable depth RHD - if in fact he turns out to be affordable enough (as he always has been to this point).

[mll]

10 minutes ago, Pears said:

Just because a player was taken high and above other players who turned out much better, doesn’t mean he should have been picked there. I think of all teams we should know that. 

Florida scouts believed he was better than these guys.  In hindsight it did not turn out that way but at the time of the trade he was a highly touted prospect.  You can't use hindsight to say that Florida did not give up anything of value. 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by mll