Column: What if St. Louis had kept Alex Pietrangelo?

[TBone]

The writer hits the nail on the head on several points: 1) Losing Petro was a major blunder. 2) Armstrong's attempts to replace him were ultimate failures. 3) Even if Petro had been retained the retool we're seeing would have still occured, but would have only been delayed.

What wasn't said was the near simultaneous loss Jay Bouwmeester and Army's flailing attempts to replace him too. Yet even with his loss St. Louis still had a shot to repeat in the COVID interrupted season, but we all know what happened with certain team leaders not being prepared to play leading into the bubble. The whole Pietrangelo Era will go down as one of extremes, from winning the Cup to mailing it in, with a war of egos between he and Doug Armstong as the backdrop. Memories so thick you have to brush them away.

---------------------------------------


What if St. Louis had kept Alex Pietrangelo?

By Joe DeMarini
July 19, 2025

- clip -

Losing Pietrangelo hit the Blues' defense corps hard, and Armstrong scrambled to find a solution--two solutions, in fact. Armstrong signed Torey Krug and Justin Faulk to matching seven-year, $45.5-million contracts that each carried cap hits of $6.5 million and included no-trade protections throughout: full No-Trade Clauses for the first five years, and Modified NTCs for the final two. Faulk and Krug never lived up to their contracts, with Krug's career likely over due to injury as well, and neither player could replace what Pietrangelo brought to the lineup.

It was a colossal fumble to let Pietrangelo walk over an NMC--trade protections Armstrong wound up giving to two lesser players to try and replace Pietrangelo; it was a total mismanagement of the cap and the beginning of a downward spiral the Blues are only just now pulling themselves out of.

What if the Blues had kept Pietrangelo, though? Re-signed him, and not made the blunder of handing out matching albatross contracts to both Krug and Faulk. On the one hand, the Blues likely would've remained a more competitive team through the early 2020s: even with the departures of Ryan O'Reilly and Vladimir Tarasenko, the Blues' forward group has remained strong as Jordan Kyrou and Robert Thomas have emerged as true top-line talents. With Pietrangelo on the backend, they would've had a rock-solid No. 1 defenseman and could've filled out the rest of the blue line in other ways. Would that have been a true Cup-contending team? Maybe not, but the 2018-19 team that did win didn't fit the mold, either.

https://bleedinblue.com/what-if-st-loui ... k0f9gtk193

[DawgDad]

False premise. The NMC wasn't the hang-up, it was reportedly the amount and structure of the bonus payments in a time of great uncertainty. In the end it was Pietrangelo who turned down the offer from the Blues, as was his right. He was not the Blues player to be "kept", he was a UFA.

This type of stuff is what gives journalism today a bad reputation.

[Red7]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

[TBone]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

Exactly right, Red.

[netboy65]

It was 5 years ago. Let it go already

[DawgDad]

It was 5 years ago. Let it go already

Amen to that.

[Boomac]

False premise. The NMC wasn't the hang-up, it was reportedly the amount and structure of the bonus payments in a time of great uncertainty. In the end it was Pietrangelo who turned down the offer from the Blues, as was his right. He was not the Blues player to be "kept", he was a UFA.

This type of stuff is what gives journalism today a bad reputation.

+1, At least this article wasn't AI generated. But getting details wrong in an opinion piece taints that opinion to me.

[a smell of green grass]

The writer failed to mention...

And 6 years later, what do we see in place of the TOP4 RHD Pietrangelo?
- No "next Pietrangelo" in the lineup, and we have one of the oldest defenses in the NHL
- A GM trying to find a TOP5 RHD at Pick 16 by way of a huge gamble on injured knees and head (Jiricek)
- A GM trading away a proven NHL Winger and fan favorite (Bolduc) for a possible TOP5 RHD from the Canadien roster (Mailloux). What are the chances that a TOP5 RHD existed at the 4th-best RHD roster spot on one of the losingest teams in the NHL?

The writer also failed to mention what would have happened if ROR, Tarasenko, and Barbashev had also been kept. There is no evidence of their young replacement on the NHL roster yet either.

[a smell of green grass]

It was 5 years ago. Let it go already

But don't forget the Stanley Cup 6 years ago?

I recommend that both monumental successes and screw-ups should be remembered for at least 15 years.

[rezero]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

I disagree a little as the Faulk contract was needed as Edmunson had some issues and was playing below his $3.6 cap figure. When they signed Faulk, they were still offering the deal to Petro that he rejected. The Krug signing was a complete desperation move by Army and one that played out horribly for the Blues.

[rezero]

The writer failed to mention...

And 6 years later, what do we see in place of the TOP4 RHD Pietrangelo?
- No "next Pietrangelo" in the lineup, and we have one of the oldest defenses in the NHL
- A GM trying to find a TOP5 RHD at Pick 16 by way of a huge gamble on injured knees and head (Jiricek)
- A GM trading away a proven NHL Winger and fan favorite (Bolduc) for a possible TOP5 RHD from the Canadien roster (Mailloux). What are the chances that a TOP5 RHD existed at the 4th-best RHD roster spot on one of the losingest teams in the NHL?

The writer also failed to mention what would have happened if ROR, Tarasenko, and Barbashev had also been kept. There is no evidence of their young replacement on the NHL roster yet either.

I wish we still had Barbs. Losing ROR and Tarasenko were well timed as we got the best version of those players and had someone else pay for their twilight.

[netboy65]

It was 5 years ago. Let it go already

But don't forget the Stanley Cup 6 years ago?

I recommend that both monumental successes and screw-ups should be remembered for at least 15 years.

If you can’t tell the difference between a championship and just a player, I can’t help you.
Now go ahead, reply with more of your drivel

[sdaltons]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

Exactly right, Red.

I disagree. Faulk was a CYA move in case Petro left. And considering you wouldn't wait until the last minute to talk extension with your star player, I wouldn't be surprised if they already knew it was going to be a difficult negotiation.

If Petro had signed, they would have dealt Parayko for a haul and everything would have been fine.

Agree Krug was a bad move. But a lot of that is hindsight. If the deal had been for a little less and a little shorter, it likely would have looked ok. Definitely it was a panic move though.

[Red7]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

I disagree a little as the Faulk contract was needed as Edmunson had some issues and was playing below his $3.6 cap figure. When they signed Faulk, they were still offering the deal to Petro that he rejected. The Krug signing was a complete desperation move by Army and one that played out horribly for the Blues.

As far as Faulk is concerned, the trade for Faulk was seen as an upgrade. The extension was a shot across the Pietrangelo bow. If you don’t re-sign, we have your replacement. Unfortunately, Faulk was uncomfortable playing the left side and when Pietrangelo DID leave, Faulk was expected to fill his skates. It reminded me of Garth Butcher and Scott Stevens. A controversial trade followed by a big extension and the attempt to plug that player into a vacated role (Butcher was named captain and put on the first pairing).

[netboy65]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

Exactly right, Red.

I disagree. Faulk was a CYA move in case Petro left. And considering you wouldn't wait until the last minute to talk extension with your star player, I wouldn't be surprised if they already knew it was going to be a difficult negotiation.

If Petro had signed, they would have dealt Parayko for a haul and everything would have been fine.

Agree Krug was a bad move. But a lot of that is hindsight. If the deal had been for a little less and a little shorter, it likely would have looked ok. Definitely it was a panic move though.

Yeah it doesn’t look great in hindsight, but Petro was 40ish points and while Parayko was supposed to be our new number one D, he wasn’t much for the points. Enter Krug who was supposed to pick up some of the offensive slack from the blue line. So I don’t consider it a panic move, but we had to do something to replace lost production

[netboy65]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

I disagree a little as the Faulk contract was needed as Edmunson had some issues and was playing below his $3.6 cap figure. When they signed Faulk, they were still offering the deal to Petro that he rejected. The Krug signing was a complete desperation move by Army and one that played out horribly for the Blues.

As far as Faulk is concerned, the trade for Faulk was seen as an upgrade. The extension was a shot across the Pietrangelo bow. If you don’t re-sign, we have your replacement. Unfortunately, Faulk was uncomfortable playing the left side and when Pietrangelo DID leave, Faulk was expected to fill his skates. It reminded me of Garth Butcher and Scott Stevens. A controversial trade followed by a big extension and the attempt to plug that player into a vacated role (Butcher was named captain and put on the first pairing).

It was nothing like Stevens. He didn’t leave voluntarily he was taken from us. We traded for Butcher because Sutter had a hard on for him